Talk:Jean Charles de Menezes/Archive 1

This is an archived discussion, please do not edit

Archive discussion

Answered questions and/or purely argumentative threads have been archived to a subpage. Please continue to focus on refining this article and addressing questions and concerns. -Kwh 16:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've moved them back again. These were current topics of discussion. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Not a good idea to make an "Intro" section. I didn't realise the archive stuff was in here. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Have merged history back again. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I think we should reach a census. Should the archive 1 subpage be deleated as well as the link to it on this page? --Admiral Roo 10:48, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I'm indifferent. I just moved answered questions and extraneous discussion out since the page was getting long, and I also wanted to keep people focused on the article and not discussions better suited to other fora. Since Ta bu shi da yu disagreed, and I don't feel strongly enough about it to battle, I just hope everyone will stay focused and help manage the talk page. -Kwh 16:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Not trying to do battle, but conversations should not be archived when they are still current. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

IPCC Leak, Style, and Responsibility

I'm inserting this up top because I think it needs to be discussed. Numerous editors are attributing third-hand information either as undisputed fact or as being from the (as yet unfinished and unpublished) IPCC report because it showed up in a news report about alleged leaked documents. As a matter of responsible editing, these should be reported as allegations until they are conceded as not in dispute. If you think that doesn't make sense, I would refer you to "Rathergate" as one cautionary tale against resting a report on discreditable non-primary sources.

If you are eager to rewrite the article 'as-if' the IPCC report were already published, then save a copy as a subpage under your user page and work on it. I've seen just about every point in the NPOV tutorial broken by various edits, and will continue to revert/remove those as I see them, and will be glad to discuss those revisions. Remember, "NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable.".[1] Ultimately, when the IPCC report is official, I think that the subsection link to that full and correct version of events would be referenced in the lede graf.

As a matter of style, I think that subsections and grafs need to be structured either around a topic outline or a chronological narrative. It just doesn't read well to have a chronological narrative interrupted by 3 alternate versions of what happened. e.g.:

"After the shooting, police claimed that officers had been observing the address and reported being suspicious of Menezes' clothing. Police claimed that because they believed Menezes was wearing a heavy jacket on a warm day it raised suspicions that he was hiding explosives underneath, and was therefore a potential suicide bomber (although it would later be revealed that in fact he was wearing an ordinary denim jacket). At the time of the shooting, the temperature in London (at a Heathrow Airport weather station) was about 17°C (62°F)."

The parenthetical is particularly bad, but in terms of prose, the scene starts out being recounted by reference to police claims (which are the only claims of what happened/was seen outside the Scotia Road house), and then yanks the reader back out and claims the scene was otherwise, based on a less credible source. I just don't think it's good writing style. Another way might be to state N different versions of the chain of events (which may be overkill if the versions do not completely diverge), but I think the version that's been hanging around (state "skeleton" narrative of undisputed facts, then address each of the points of divergence) is better.

If anything, inclusion of the IPCC facts in the narrative would require a complete rework of the structure, so please discuss that rework here.

I really want to make sure this article stays solid; last time I checked this is one of the highest google search results for "Menezes", and so I'd like to keep it to a high standard of writing and factual integrity. (who knows, maybe it will be referenced by a mainstream media source?) -Kwh 15:34, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

FYI, on Monday August 23 Scotland Yard confirmed most of the substance of the leaked version of events. [2] They also confirmed that Menezes' cousins/family were briefed on those facts back on July 24. Don't know if someone wants to find a good way to fit that into the article. -Kwh 04:58, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Four attempted bomb attacks

The statement in the first line of the article may be disputed. Has there yet been evidence that there were 'four attempted bombs' which did not explode? Certainly there were loud bangs - but I have not yet heard or read of definitive evidence that these were further bombs. May they not have been solely detonators, designed to add to the general confusion and panic? However, given that those responsible were photographed on CCTV they will probably be caught - hopefully not shot. Jeffrey Newman 16:13, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that evidence has now been produced to show that there were in fact similar explosives involved in the second attacks to those of July 7th but for some reason - as yet unexplained - they fortunately did not detonate. Jeffrey Newman 12:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Continuing my dialogue with myself - which in any case should move to another article - the issue of the 'explosives' has been raised again by the arrest of one of the 'bombers' in Rome and suggestions that there was no intention to cause loss of life. My caution is simply that over-eager police statements and actions were exposed in a number of IRA trials, but only years later. Jeffrey Newman 12:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Controversy over police procedure

This section seems to be somewhat rambling and needs a little more structure and contains a lot of quotations. I might take a look at this tomorrow evening if I have the time and no-one else has in the meantime, there's a lot of content there but it's not particularly easy to read. --Sully 22:01, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I've now had an initial stab at this, it still needs more editing and the list of supporters/critics of the Police's actions is getting a bit large so this will be probably need to be tidied up in some way as well. --Sully 20:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Request For Clarification

If law enforcement or special forces suspect someone of being an armed suicide bomber, wouldn't tackling and shooting the suspect put people at risk of being destroyed by a bomb with an activated Dead Man Switch, or even just a de-pinned hand grenade? How is tackling and shooting the suspect any better than merely restraining or drugging them? I expect any real suicide bombers will certainly employ Dead Man Switch tactics from now on, if they didn't before. Sorry about not logging in, I don't want to make it easy to associate my name with this comment since it could be considered a threat of some sort. Er, I'm totally posting through a zombie proxy... yeah.

Perhaps it's just as simple as that bombers don't have a history of using dead man switches (perhaps because they want to avoid premature triggering). Even so, interesting as it is to speculate, it has nothing to do with this article. -- Grace Note

Or perhaps it was due to deadly incompetence? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Suicide bombers do not have a history of using the "dead man's switch". Also, there is no way of knowing which mechanism they will use to set it off, so shooting the suspect or not is a moot point. - tom1234

The Met Police took advice from the Israeli's. They should know.

Yeah, they have solved all their problems pretty swiftly, haven't they? - jason

Plus, you shoot someone anywhere, there's a good chance they will let go of a dead man's switch, especially if they are a suicide bomber. So, you may as well blow their brains out.

What's the difference, apart from running the risk of killing an innocent person? I thought this episode taught us that the shoot-to-kill policy is dangerous at best, especially considering how on edge the police were/are and the not exactly top-notch quality of our intelligence. One cock-up out of one. 100% failure rate. The "Dead Man Switch" argument is a very powerful one, I don't understand why the media are not even mentioning it. - jason

Flats, not house

This source is pretty clear that Menezes lived in a block of flats, not a house. Grace Note 03:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Operation Kratos Training

I'm not going to just drop this into the article as I'm not sure it's confirmed enough yet, but The Telegraph [3] is indicating that the shooting took place under Operation Kratos guidelines, which sheds light on the story. Apparently the Metro 'marked him' as soon as they saw him leave the flat, and as soon as he acted suspicious - wham. This is salient to the timeline, and why the action taken was so severe. -Kwh 06:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I think you should put the Operation Kratos reference and link back into the story. If you think there was something non-neutral about the phrasing, then re-phrase it, but removing it is weird. That the Telegraph reported it is itself worth mentioning regardless of whether there's further confirmation. 63.203.204.231 08:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

BBC reports it too: [4] Also the Guardian (quoted by Bloomberg) [5] 63.203.204.231 08:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Mr. (or Mrs.) 63.203.204.231 - your revision had apparently chopped out several paragraphs of good content, and replaced it with a sentence fragment (I don't have time to check right now, but I recall the sentence started with "And". It was more expedient to revert than rewrite at the time. I've gotta get to work, but there will probably be more interesting developments today, and you or someone else can write a better edit. -Kwh 11:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think I chopped out anything. And while I did leave a sentence beginning with "and", that's simply a question of style ;-). I'll see about putting it back. 63.203.204.231 15:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

"The officer can open fire only if authorised to do so by a chief police officer - either at the start of a pre-planned operation, as seems to have been the case at Stockwell, or by police radio during a "spontaneous" incident." --telegraph.co.uk, 07/24/2005

The policy of shooting at the head instead of the body has nothing to do with the risk of setting off explosives. Such ideas have been invented by armchair experts and the usual source of rubbish found on this site: British journalists. You cannot detonate an explosive device by firing a bullet into it, and there is only a theoretical possibility that a shot hitting the detonation mechanism will detonate the main charge. The policy of aiming at the head has to do with rendering the individual incapable of acting further: i.e. pulling a trigger, pressing a button, dialling a phone etc in order to detonate a device. 195.92.40.49 12:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Fortunately for us, you are not shaping armed police policies. The explosives (acetone peroxide) used by the bombers in London is more volatile than regular high explosive and can be detonated by rounds from a 9mm. There was a unit which did research on this with different types of explosive and different types of bullets. Please see the recent BBC articles on this subject [6]. --Tom1234 15:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes of course, I am sorry. If the BBC says so it must be right. We should rename this site www.bbc.com. 195.92.40.49 18:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but other news sources say it too - Financial Times, The Telegraph and Some NZ newspaper.--Tom1234 18:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Fortunately for us, you are not writing history books based on the writings of journalists, the most dishonest and creative profession after lawyers.

I'm sorry Tom1234, but shooting at the head for incapacition purposes is a perfectly sensible armed police policy: a man shot in the lower body or legs can still pull a trigger, press a button or flick a switch. All this crap about not detonating a device by firing a lump of lead at it . . . if you don't kill the suicide bomber immediately, he'll detonate his device anyway! Use your brain man. Don't show us umpteen claims from non-expert journalists (including from "some NZ paper" - wow!) who do not have to cite genuine sources and try providing real technical evidence from a ballistics or explosives expert. 62.252.0.6 22:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

See here for an expert opinion on the merits of shoot-to-kill. It's not as wise as it sounds.

What a load of crap. Pure assumption and speculation. Anyway, such a trigger would be visible in the hand. If none is identified, the policy is eminently sensible.

Are you going to actually contribute to this discussion, or are you just going to spout off crap yourself? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Apparently the shoot to kill policy is actually a shoot to stop policy. See [7] --Tom1234 15:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Apparently it's both. See [8] Rbarreira 16:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Which will be the basis for the lawsuit, should it come about. Under European law, blanket rules like this are illegal - but don't quote me on it. --Tom1234 16:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm working on some research for an Operation Kratos article, because I think that this incident has raised it to article worthiness and details on exactly what it is will come out in the inquest. The page under my user page is a bit of a mess, but feel free to peruse the sources and add anything you might have found. -Kwh 15:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The article Operation Kratos is now open for business. -Kwh 04:58, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Life before death

I'd like to know more about what Jean's life was life before he was killed. I feel it would be an appropriate addition to the article and will probably add some info after school tomorrow. Five shots to the back of the head was not his entire life. Brodo 07:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

There's some background here [9] - which could be incorporated - Xed 08:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Some more pics of his family: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/24/234650/093

Do keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a memorial. The fact that he had a happy family life is presumed, not notable, and not encyclopedic. --Dhartung | Talk 15:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Shooting

I have removed some bits from the section on Shooting - if we can find proper information it can go back in but it does need a proper reference. In the first paragraph we said "He was pushed to the floor, restrained, and one of the police officers then shot him five times in the head..." as the next paragraph says "There are conflicting reports as to whether the undercover police properly identified themselves, attempted to restrain the man on the floor..." I have removed "restrained" and I don't think anybody makes it clear that he was pushed so I have moved that into the next paragraph. Andreww 08:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

The quote below that text makes clear he was pushed and restrained - Xed 08:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that the conflicting reports come from the police saying one thing and independent eyewitnesses saying quite another. As far as I can gather, he may well have tripped when entering the train, but then the police caught up with him, piled on top of him while ordering everybody out of the carriage, and shot him five times in the head while they had him on the floor. — Trilobite (Talk) 08:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure that "bundled on top of him" is quite the same as restraining him - my aim in changing the text is to make clear what is not in any doubt, i.e. that he was on the floor, was shot five times (note that one eye witness gets this wrong) and that he is dead, from things that are less clear and, no doubt, will be examined at length over the next few weeks. Andreww 08:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

It's pretty simple (and more encyclopedic) to say "The police said they did not .... Witnesses said ..." instead of "He was ..." Use the latter format only for things over which there is no disagreement. --Dhartung | Talk 16:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

The witness said the suspect was "bundled" before he was shot, the article says "pinned down". The is a large difference in meaning, "bundled" implies a disorganised way of keeping someone on the floor, "pinned" means an organised way to keeping someone on the floor. To me, "pinned" makes it sound like an execution which is still speculation at this point. - --Tom1234 14:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the phrase "pinned down" because none of the eyewitnesses quoted in the BBC article used the term pinned down, they all use "bundled" which holds a diferent meaning.

--Tom1234 15:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

"Slain"

Can we have a less emotive word on the main page link to this article? "Slain" is a loaded word which is likely to be inflammatory. It's not NPOV by any stretch of the imagination. This is a tragic mistake but Wikipedia does not have to (and should not) fan the flames.

There is quite a difference between being NPOV and using euphemisms to water down historical facts.

(Please sign edits to Talk pages.) I don't see anything POV about slain, which means killed through violence. It certainly isn't a synonym for murdered, although it's often used that way. Besides, this is the wrong Talk page for this question. --Dhartung | Talk 16:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

-The use of the word "tragic" is far more contentious than the word "slain". "Tragedy" strictly speaking means an event which has a certain inevitability in that it was brought about by a inherent flaw in the person who died. This is palpably not the case here - it cannot be argued that there was anything inevitable about this, and there must be some responsibility taken. "Slain" is entirely correct. "Tragic" is POV, and deliberatly takes responsibility away from those whose actions and policies are to "shoot to kill". I am making no judgements in saying this, merely avoiding language which implies POV judgements. Jmc29

Sick site

The reference to the website Jean Charles de Menezes' Handy Hints for Surviving in London should be removed. The petty-minded, ignorant and bestial people behind this sick site do not deserve the publicity. The fact that the website exists has nothing to do with the story, it is on a level with someone making a sick or offensive comment down the local pub. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a compendium of gossip and crank views. The presence of this link to the website would be deeply upsetting, for no reason, to any friend or relative of the victim who visits this site. Its presence is a shame on wikipedia. Jmc29

Well, we also link to Shock sites, so we're not exactly the dainty zone here. My only question is whether this is truly notable, or if it's just some kind of spam. Since I'm in the US I have no idea how this is going over in UK media. If the site is widely discussed there, it's another thing, but it doesn't necessarily represent a notable public viewpoint from where I'm sitting. These things always attract those with a tasteless sense of humor (as I'm known to have on occasion myself). --Dhartung | Talk 16:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Links to shock sites are on pages devoted to shock sites, so the people are warned about the type of material. That's not the case here. I removed the link since I don't even consider it to be it any notable or relevant for THIS wikipedia article. Please don't add it again without justifying why on this talk page (preferably in this section). Rbarreira 16:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

--Dhartung, I sugest that if you are fond of tasteless sense of humour, that you should spend your time readig Hustler instead of giving input to Wikipedia. I agree in full with Jmc29. The link should be kept out.

Oh, put a sock (puppet?) in it. I gave an appropriate evaluation process for keeping or deleting the link, I did not defend it, as you so "helpfully" read into my answer. Look at my contribution history if you think I'm somehow detrimental to the place. --Dhartung | Talk 17:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

-- I think that it is absolutely appropriate that the link to the site has been removed. Wikipedia is the only place I have seen reference to this site, or in fact mention of the offensive t-shirt. Whilst it is true that, whenever there is a public tragedy or atrocity, some people will immediately make jokes about it, that is the preserve of private behaviour and has no relevence to the story itself or the way it should be reported. Thanks for removing this. I am not sure what the justification of the reference to the T-shirts is. Jmc29

"Related incidents"

These other incidents of wrongful police shootings are not directly related. I suggest they be moved into a separate article (perhaps Innocent people killed by police in the UK?). Mirror Vax 19:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

This was discussed a couple of days ago when the link to the Harry Stanley case was removed, my personal opinion is that mistaken shootings in recent years by the Met Police certainly are related (eg Harry Stanley) but links to the IRA shootings in Gibralter in the late 80s and shootings related to the troubles in NI probably aren't. The Harry Stanley case has been mentioned in some news reports so that lends itself to it being linked as well.--Sully 20:20, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I had put the reference in to Gibralter. Although different in sheer terms of time, location and force the operations appeared to be similar. The three killed had been monitered for a long time and had acutally been turned away from the Gibraltar border at one point (rahter than being arrested). de Menezes had been shot after being followed from his home, on to a bus and only challeneged in the station. The three were shot repeatedly to stop them operating any sort of remote device on their person but turned out to be unarmed. de Menezes was shot under a policy to shoot repeatedly to render the person completely immobile. Lucifer(sc) 16:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't object to links, I just don't think the text belongs in this article. It's a distinct subject. Mirror Vax 22:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this - they are relevant to this article, but not part of the article, so they should be given a separate page (category?) and linked. Robin Johnson 11:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

A small but sincere request

So far, every person I've heard defending the police on this case is either stupid or ignorant of the facts. This should be fixed, so please spread the word of the following facts. You can do this either online (for example, replying to blog entries which people make about this matter, asking them to correct their words) or offline.

• The policemen were working as undercover agents, which means they weren't wearing uniforms. This was certainly the biggest reason why he chose to ran away. Furthermore, he had been attacked by a gang a few weeks before. Put yourself into his position and think about what you would have done if you saw a couple of armed guys shouting at you.
• They shot him when he was already pinned to the ground, and therefore didn't have any chance to activate any explosives. -Unsigned by Rbarreira

RBarreira, the parlor-room debate part of me agrees with your viewpoint but the editor part of me says that this is argumentative and unneeded here unless it's in the form of well-cited and proveable facts to include in the article. If you think any of these facts aren't adequately represented in the article, be bold, edit it or reword it, and include cites. -Kwh 22:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Those facts are already included in the article. Google news points to a lot of pages confirming them. Given the importance of this matter, I just wanted to tell people to be attentive to this kind of ignorance and to have the facts handy to reply to them. Anyway, anyone can delete this section from the discussion, I just thought this could be a good place to tell this to people. Rbarreira 22:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Rbarreira, these 'facts' are pure speculation, were are not yet sure that the police were completely devoid of uniform, or that he was completely pinned down, subtle differences in wording mean quite different things. --Tom1234 15:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Plain clothes armed police engaged on this kind of surveillence operation usually carry baseball style caps that they don before challlenging anyone with their weapon drawn. The full facts of this case are not yet in the public domain. Jooler 20:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Number Of Shots

Although the witness reported five, it was eight, seven in the head. As released by the police and reported by the BBC [10]

A little less speculation and a bit more known facts please. I can link to a newspaper article that claims the 7 and 21 July attacks and subsequent events are the acts of Jewish Zionists and Mossad. I haven't added it to any articles because it's bull.

It is quite clearly an MI6 operation. Nothing is more a load of bull than the idea that it was "Islamic terrorists", such as "Al Qaeda".

The link to the Guardian is weak in supporting the claim vis-a-vis the Israelis. The UK police have had a right to shoot to kill (as opposed to disable) for many many years. The Association of Chief Police Officers decide the rules engagament, and for as long as UK police have had tactical firearms units they have been trained to aim for the head if they believe that they or the public are in extreme and imminent danger. Kratos is recent (post 11 September), and the police officers invloved in that work spoke to police and security forces all over the world, Israel just being one of many. But it makes more sensational copy to cite a direct link with the Israelis (only) and claim that UK police trained with them. 62.252.0.7 01:01, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

The Guardian does have a certain standing. I'm not disputing everything this anonymous user says, but anything legitimate should be included in the article, not used to justify deleting material. PatGallacher 01:13, 2005 July 24 (UTC)

I would suspect that some of the shots were concurrent, and fired by more than one officer. Hence the witness heard 5 shots although 8 were discharged. Jooler 20:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Hardly speculation, it's on ITN, BBC, CNN and various other TLA news organisations. [11] (for example). Of course the Police could be wrong about how many times he was shot, but given that they have had his body for quite some time now, a counting mistake is unlikely.

The correction is wrong. He was shot 8 times, but only 7 were head wounds. (Apparently).

The article states under 'gunshots' "It was initially stated by police that Menezes was shot five times in the head." Do we have any references for this? --Tom1234 16:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Executed people?

I am not sure that "executed people" is the right catogory for this, it's possibly POV and not accurate - even if the inquest returns a verdict of lawful killing he was not "put to death in pursuance of a sentence" (the OED definition). Can we find a better catogory? Andreww 07:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree and have removed it. →Vik Reykja 07:59, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

See also

I have removed the "See also" section. It contained pure (and emotive) conjecture - there is no evidence that this has anything to do with racism in the Met Police, or that this is comparable to a man brandishing a table leg as a weapon. We should stick to the facts, not make up our own POV, jguk 10:18, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Someone else put the racial profiling one in, and I decided to leave it because much debate is now focussing on whether the fact that he 'looked like a Muslim' made it more likely that he was shot. This doesn't necessarily relate to racism in the Met. Example:

Spokesman Inayat Bunglawala said Muslims he had spoken to this morning were "jumpy and nervous". "I have just had one phone call saying, 'what if I was carrying a rucksack?'. "There may well be reasons why the police felt it necessary to unload five shots into the man and shoot him dead, but they need to make those reasons clear," he said. "We are getting phone calls from quite a lot of Muslims who are distressed about what may be a shoot to kill policy." [12]

The Harry Stanley one I think is very relevant, because it was a case of the Met shooting someone by mistake, as was this one. No one is suggesting they are the same thing. It's been brought up in news reports, however. For example:

John O'Connor, a former Scotland Yard commander, said it was likely that the investigation could lead to one or more officers being prosecuted. He said concern would rise in the Met because of the case of Harry Stanley, who was shot dead by police six years ago while carrying a chair leg. [13]

Since the see alsos were qualified with explanatory notes (here's the diff), I think it's reasonable to have them in there, but I'll wait and see what other people think. — Trilobite (Talk) 10:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Harry Stanley was mistakenly shot from behind by the Metropolitan Police on the basis of false information. Leaving the link to Harry Stanley in is hardly "conjecture" --Sully 10:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

The conjecture is that it has anything to do with this case. The procedures the Met Police operate under for suspected suicide bombers (Operation Kratos) are unrelated to the Stanley case. To refer to Stanley is to compare apples and pears.

What have stairs got to do with anything? Besides, pears are closely related to apples.~~~~ 11:08, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

As far as racial profiling is concerned, I believe it is inappropriate to effectively accuse the Met Police of racism. We're meant to take a neutral approach here. Indeed, London police have been searching as many whites with rucksacks and bags as they have Asians, so I'd be surprised if any racism charge will stick, jguk 10:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

What we should do is say that some people (and name them) are sugesting that the met are using racial profiling (if anybody is sugesting this). And if anybody is actualy sugesting that racism is an issue we should report that too. In any case we don't just put it in "see also" and expect people to draw there own conclusions. Andreww 10:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

There is a picture of him (Menezes) on the BBC news website (http://news.bbc.co.uk), not sure if it is public domain (released by police) or not. He certainly doesn't look very asian. ~~~~ 11:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Note that Harry Stanley wasn't brandishing anything. he was walking along the road carrying a plastic shopping bag which upon investigation after his shooting was found to contain a coffee table leg which he had just had repaired. That makes the cases much more comparable. In neither case was there any threat. In both cases the accidental shootings were the result of mistaken identity brought on by the paranoia associated with a real terrorist threat. I would say that there is a very good case for a see also. In fact if you take into account the guy who was dragged from his car and shot as a result of mistaken identity a few years ago (Stephen Waldorf who luckily survived), it looks like we have the beginning of a category here. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Unanswered questions

• It is stated that Menezes was followed from a house which was under surveillance in connection with the bombings. Is this still said to be the case? If so, what was he doing there?

Houses are split up into several flats. - Xed 14:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

All houses? You know this for a fact in relation to the house in question? In any case I asked if this was still the position of the police. Adam 14:30, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

This is Stockwell, so it seems pretty obvious. - Xed 14:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Not to the large majority of the world's population who don't live in London. What do you know specifically about the house he was followed from? Adam 16:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Most newspapers are saying that he came from the same block of flats, but I don't know the offical response from the police. Robmods 20:00, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Have you got a source for block of flats? - Xed 20:05, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4713753.stm Robin Johnson 11:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone live near here? A picture of the "block of flats" would be very informative. anthony 00:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• It is reported that Menezes lived in London, knew what had been happening on the Underground and spoke excellent English. Why in these circumstances did he run from the police? This seems an incredibly stupid thing to do in the circumstances. The "he grew up in the slums and was afraid of the police" line seems very flimsy to me.

The police were plain clothes. No one has confirmed that they identified themselves. It's easy for you to say the line is flimsy, but I expect the BBCs Brazil corespondent knows more than you. - Xed 14:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Since Menezes lived inb London and spoke English he should have known that London is not Sao Paolo. The police have stated that they challenged him and gave himn instructions which he failed to obey. Stanard police procedure in these circumstances is for police to identify themselves as police. Do you have evidence that in this case they did not? Why would they not? If they did, I am still entitled to ask why an intelligent person would run from police in the Underground the day after the second round of bombings. Adam 14:30, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

They were in plain clothes - how can he possibly know that they're the police? Put yourself in his shoes - you're going about your business, with no idea that anything's wrong, then all of a sudden some large men with guns are shouting and screaming at you. Why should you believe they're the police, even if they say so? One just doesn't expect armed police to be wearing ordinary clothes. So, scared half to death, and with only a fraction of a second to think about it, he runs. One of those split-second decisions we keep hearing about. Evercat 22:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Who says he was intelligent? What was not intelligent was that the police let him board and ride a bus before challenging him, which rather invalidates the excuse for shooting him in the tube. I guess the CCTV videos, if they are ever released, will answer those questions. - Xed 14:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, "he jumped over the ticket barrier, ran down an escalator and tried to jump onto a train", thus he was probably thinking that he was going to ge fined for not paing for riding on the tube... fuck, i've traveled without paing a couple of times... will make me think twice now. Beta m (talk)

Anyone so incredibly stupid as to do such a thing in a London Tube station the day after the bombings can hardly be surprised if he gets shot. For the record, I don't think the police should have short him dead without some clear evidence that he was carrying a bomb, which (on current evidence) does not seem to have been the case. But it seems at the moment clear to me that he contributed greatly to his own death. Adam 16:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, because there's no doubt that running away from people with guns should be punishable with the death penalty. And jumping the barrier! The guy should have stopped and bought a ticket... hold on, wouldn't that have meant the people with guns would have caught up with him? Never mind, shoot him anyway. Get tough on people who won't pay. -- Grace Note

• I think we should get answers to these questions before we jump to conclusions. Adam 14:15, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

First you say he was intelligent, then he is "incredibly stupid". He was in a "state of terror" like Mr Duggan - did he too contribute to his own death by "stupidly" running into traffic? You can hardly expect someone to logically think thru things when you are being chased by men with guns. Your rush to judgement and enthusiasm to smear his character is, to say the least, disturbing. - Xed 17:01, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Seems like you already have. - Xed 14:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Not at all. I am asking questions. Adam 14:30, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Anyone so incredibly stupid as to do such a thing in a London Tube station the day after the bombings can hardly be surprised if he gets shot. That's not a question. Doesn't make much sense, either. Are you suggesting that the guy intentionally got shot? I suppose it's a possibility. Maybe he was paranoid, though running away when "up to twenty" people in plain clothes and with guns start following you isn't really all that paranoid, even if some of those people did shout out "stop, armed police", which may or may not have happened. As someone not in the situation, I have to say that I myself was surprised when I heard that the police had shot someone who was running away and was suspected of having committed the terrorist act the day before. This was before I even heard that he was on the ground, and possibly restrained at the time. I didn't realize that was legal in the UK, and I seriously doubt it would be legal here in the US. anthony 00:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

In reply to the above comments: When I said he was "intelligent," I meant I presumed he was a person of normal human intelligence. Reports I have seen say that he spoke good English and was aware of what had been happening in the Underground, because he had talked with friends about the possibility of finding another means of transport. In those circumstances, he should have known why people might be challenged by the police. He had lived in London for three years and the suggestion that he behaved as though he was still in a Sao Paulo slum or whatever seems very flimsy. If I was challenged by armed police in such a place at such a time, my reaction would be to stand still, put my hands up, and be as co-operative as possible, and I am willing to bet that would be the reaction of 99% of people. I stand by my assertion that by running from the police in those circumstances Menezes behaved with extraordinary stupidity and with reckless disregard for his own life. It was even more stupid to run into the Tube station and onto a train, which is just what a suicide bomber would have done. As I said above, I don't believe, on currently available evidence, that the police should have shot him dead without evidence that he was carrying explosives, but then I didn't have to make a split-second decision in which not shooting him might have led to an explosion killing dozens of people. In reply to Anthony: what Menezes did was the equivalent of producing a box-cutter on a US airliner the week after September 11. Try it even now and see what happens to you. Adam 00:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I think you're a bit judgemental considering that you were not an eyewitness and everything you are using to adjudge his "extraordinary stupidity" and "reckless disregard" is still hearsay and unconfirmed snippets of witness accounts. Maybe you should rethink about whether the intention of your presence on this article is to contribute or just to be argumentative.

Also I wanted to point out to you that it's not the same thing as "producing a box-cutter on [an] airliner..." Producing what looks like a box-cutter on an airliner is the same thing as acting like a 9/11 hijacker. Holding a bag with what looks like explosives and wires hanging out of it is the same thing as acting like an Underground bomber. Running and wearing a jacket on a hot day is the same as neither of these, and doesn't justify the need for execution-style deadly force. -Kwh 03:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

The witness accounts say that Menezes appeared to be scared out of his mind. That suggests that Menezes was fleeing what he perceived to be great danger. Nothing odd about that. Obviously there were some misperceptions, on both sides, but there's no reason to assume at this point that Menezes was stupid or reckless. Mirror Vax 01:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

"As the man got on the train I looked at his face. He looked from left to right, but he basically looked like a cornered rabbit, like a cornered fox. He looked absolutely petrified." - Mark Whitby

In reply to Anthony: what Menezes did was the equivalent of producing a box-cutter on a US airliner the week after September 11. Try it even now and see what happens to you. As we now know he didn't even run away, but even if he had that would not be the equivalient of producing a box-cutter. Running away from people with guns is a much more common reaction than producing a box-cutter, and producing a weapon is much more likely to get you shot than running away. Shooting someone producing a box-cutter could arguably be seen as self-defense. Shooting someone who is running away from you can't. anthony 12:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

As I have said twice already, my current view, based on very incomplete evidence, is that the police made an error of judgement in killing him. But I am not prepared to condemn people who were charged with protecting public safety, who had to make a decision very quickly, and who were confronted by a person doing what Menezes did. Imagine how the police would now be pilloried if Menezes had been a bomber and they had not stopped him. I maintain my view, again based on incomplete evidence, that he had no rational reason for behaving as he did and that he contributed to his own death. Adam 05:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, because people are exclusively rational beings. I don't think you'd be talking like this if he was your own friend or yourself (ignore the fact that you would be dead and incapable of talking). Rbarreira 13:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Like Duggan then? - Xed 07:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Jeremiah Duggan was probably killed by members of the fascist LaRouche cult, or at least driven to suicide by their "recruitment" techniques. I'm not sure what connection you see between that case and this. Are you suggesting that Menezes committed suicide by forcing the police to shoot him? I suppose that is possible, but we would need to see evidence of a motive. Adam 08:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

For whatever reason, you have repeatedly called Menezes "incredibly stupid" simply for being executed. Perhaps you are simply desperate to prove how intellectually superior you are by defaming an innocent man. You didn't do the same with Duggan - Xed 08:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

This slanging-match seems pretty pointless. Adam Carr puts forward a perfectly sane analysis and gets shot down in flames, for calling somebody stupid; he is criticised for calling this dead man stupid for running away from armed police. Well I'm sorry, but that IS stupid. Not worth losing your life for, but running away from armed anti-terrorist police (and this would have been OBVIOUS without a warning - we don't have 20-strong gun gangs patrolling the streets of central London!) onto a Tube train is stupid. We all have stupid moments, just some more stupid than others - this is hardly defamation. Xyster 09:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

You're forgetting that he himself had only a fraction of a second to decide what to do. He made an instinctive decision to run away from a group of armed men in plain clothes. This is not, in my book, particularly stupid. But even if it is, being stupid is not a capital offense. Evercat 12:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, in these precise circumstances, circumstances in effect of wartime, I'm afraid it can be, and in this case it was. Adam 01:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Don't come all rhetoric on us. The question is not if it WAS, it's if it SHOULD be, and you know that perfectly. Rbarreira 14:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Apparently certain people are more concerned with lambasting the London police for a possible mistake in judgment than the fanatics who created these tense circumstances. J. Parker Stone 10:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

If were going to get into blameing those who caused the situation of violence rather then the imediate killers then why not blame Bush and Blair for radicalising the murderrous bombers (who spooked the incopatent police) with their murderrous forien polices? ;-) Anyway this isn't a discusion forum what aspect of the article are you discussing? Do you want it included in the article that he was supposedly stupid?--JK the unwise 11:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

did you think adding a cute little smiley would take away from the asininity of your "point"? if you're going to make baseless allegations about how these poor folks were "radicalized" into it then go do it somewhere else, cuz i've heard enough of this twisted sort of apologia from others. and i never said add "stupid" to the article and i don't believe Adam did either, he just made the comment that what the guy did wasn't the smartest. J. Parker Stone 12:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The Bombers didn't force the police to shot an innocent man but you say we should blame the bombers for creating the situation. I'm simply following your logic of extending blame along the causal chain. Evil ideologies (imperialism) breed evil ideologies (terrorism). Any way I winked because I knew my comments would infuriate you and obsucure my main point that this is not a discusion forum. Could we contain ourselves to discussing the article and have our ideoligal debates else where? --JK the unwise 12:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

i ain't the one who made this an "ideological debate," i just commented that it seemed certain users were gung-ho on attacking Adam just to prove what a "wrong judgment" these police made as if it's a tragedy on a greater scale than the London bombings (where innocent people, not innocent people acting suspicious, were targetted.) anyhow, i would continue this somewhere else but i have no desire to talk logic to someone who equates the British contribution in Iraq with Islamist terror. J. Parker Stone 03:08, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Discussion copied from Talk:21 July 2005 London bombings

Would you guys be interested in more background (biographic) information on the Brazilian man shot by police in the subway? I have a couple of articles from the Brazilian press that give some information on his background, his family's reaction and the Brazilian government's reaction to the incident. If you'd like, I can translate them, or just the relevant parts, into English and post the translations here, on this talk page, so that we can decide what, if anything, can be added to the article's section. Unless of course you are satisfied with what is already in the article. Just let me know. In any case, I've added an entry to the news section of the Brazil Wikiportal that contains a couple of details about him that are not on this article. If you wish, use it. Regards, Redux 16:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Probably the best place for biographical details would be the guy's own article, but sure, go ahead! -- Joolz 17:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe he'd be notable enough to merit his own article on Wikipedia. Unless over the next few weeks this case takes in a lot of attention and has much repercussion. Otherwise, a subsection on this article about him and the incident should suffice. As I said, maybe the community deems what is already in the article to be sufficient. I have not been involved with the article thus far, and would not like to disturb the logic of the work that is being done here by clogging the article with information that most think should not be included. But let me give a sample of what I could provide:

• From an article of the online version of A Folha de São Paulo (leading newspaper from São Paulo): (...) A speaker for Scotland Yard has informed that Menezes' four cousins who also reside in London have been placed in a hotel, so that they can be spared the press inquires and thus have more privacy and comfort to deal with this terrible situation. It seems obvious that the Scotland Yard will be picking up the bill.
• From the online edition of O Globo (leading newspaper in Rio de Janeiro): The man killed in the London subway this friday was Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes, a 26 year-old. His family is from the rural area of Gonzaga, in the west of the state of Minas Gerais. The victim's cousin, who recognized the body, told that he was in the country legally, had a fix job as an electrician and spoke English fluently. Still shaken from the news of the death, his family is still unaware of when the body would be brought back to Brazil. Itamaraty [Brazil's Ministry of Foreign Affairs] is expected to call a press conference to address the issue this Saturday. They await only a formal communication from the British authorities. First news that the victim was a Brazilian came from the newspaper 'The Observer', which is supposed to have gotten the information from police sources. Rumors grew considerably when the Metropolitan Police sent officers to the Brazilian Embassy in London. Menezes was killed while on his way to work. Allegedly, he was shot because his clothes and general behavior caused policemen at the station to suspect him. Maria Alves, Menezes' cousin who lives in São Paulo, said that Jean had been living in London for the past five years. He lived with other four cousins. Menezes had last been to Brazil this last February, while on vacations.
  I realize, of course, that not all this, or even most of it, is usable in the article. But perhaps some of the information contained could be useful. Regards, Redux 17:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • He already has his own article, Jean Charles de Menezes, and his death does seem to be causing a lot of fuss here -- Joolz 20:38, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh boy, that's a VfD waiting to happen (with a "merge" outcome, probably). About the 50+ victims of the July 7 explosions, wasn't there consensus somewhere that it would be fine to have them listed, but not create articles on them? Granted, this poor man was not a victim of the attacks, he was killed by the police. The event is so very much connected to the events of July 21 that it just doesn't seem (to me) to be the case of having an article just for him. Well, this is probably being discussed in the Menezes's article talk page. Let's see what is decided. Regards, Redux 20:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
      • It's a massive article, I am extremely confident it would survive a VfD (normally long+decent and well referenced articles survive on that basis) and there would be too much info to merge. Personally he scrapes in for notability in my opinion because it's rare for the Police to shoot someone, and the circumstances in which he died are highly unusual, it's not to say that *anyone* shot by UK police is notable, ofcourse, but this guy was shot running from plain clothes police because they thought he was a suicide bomber, nobody has died like that in the UK before, and the repurcussions of the event are quite huge, the police officer could actually face criminal charges -- Joolz 21:18, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

No, that's definitely notable -- innocent man shot "execution-style" by police thinking he's a suicide bomber. Alas, it's practically as notable as the attacks themselves -- it will probably have far-reaching effects on the British law-enforcement response to the attacks, and as been stated elsewhere, at least one cop may go to prison, and several careers are probably going to end prematurely. In any case the information on him (as well as the notability discussion) belongs in that article; I will copy this entire discussion there. --Dhartung | Talk 22:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I guess so. I'm not completely sure though, as the event is far too recent for the consequences/repercussions to be assessed as would be desirable. I would not VfD the article anyways, I'd only do it if I were 100% convinced that it shouldn't be here, which is not the case. What I meant was that I'm almost sure that someone else will VfD it. If the article is looking good though, I'd vote to keep. The entire situation is indeed unbelievable: innocent, immigrant working man gunned down by police due to the tense atmosphere generated by two bomb attacks in a month. When you think about it like this, yes, this could turn out an encyclopedic article. Regards, Redux 23:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, this article is now on the front page via "In the news". I think your concerns are misplaced. --Dhartung | Talk 05:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm glad about it too. It's never nice to see other people's hard work VfD, and it's even worse when you realize that the VfD may have been unfair/unjustified. Good work people. Regards, Redux 15:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

My take

Tragically, it looks like I was right. Basically, the terrorists won, as a perfectly innocent man was killed by authorities, because of the way they have started to act due to terrorist activities. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• If he was perfectly innocent, why did he run from the police?
  • The policemen weren't wearing uniforms. The next time I see you running away from some guy who's chasing you with a gun, I'll ask you if you are innocent too... Rbarreira 13:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
    • There is a difference between plain clothes policemen and policemen with no uniform on at all. The Met's plain clothes policemen have uniform caps which they can put on, but they are not required to put on, when challenging a suspect. --Tom1234 14:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
      • So? Rbarreira 16:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
        • So... until we know exactly who they were we should not speculate.--Tom1234 16:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
          • But we certainly can appoint this as one of the possible reasons for him to escape (be it with or without caps). We'll probably never be able to know all the reasons since Menezes is dead. Rbarreira 16:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
            • True, I should not speculate on whether they wore their caps or not.--Tom1234 16:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• What would you have done if you were one of these stupid bastards, charged with protecting 3 million commuters a day against a squad of fanatical mass murderers, faced with a snap decision on what do with someone running into the Tube and ignoring orders to stop?

Adam 07:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't be shooting the poor bastard 5 times in the head. Besides, those were plainclothes police officers. Ever thought that he might have thought it was a gang going after him? Sounds like panic to me. Think about that next time you're on Victoria's rail network — after all, John Howard says that Australia wants to bring in some British "expertise", mainly because of the terrorist bombings that happened over there. If that's the sort of expertise we'll be bringing in, God help us Aussies! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

In fact you have no idea what you would do, because luckily for you, you will never be put in a position where you have to make that decision. So what if they were plainclothes police? Standard procedure is to shout "Police! Halt!" or words to that effect. Has anyone suggested that they did not follow that procedure in this case? A gang? Are there gangs of armed men in suits going around terrorising people on the Tube in broad daylight? I repeat what I said above. He spoke English. He knew why police were operating in the Tube that day. To run from the police, to jump a barrier and run towards a Tube train was an incredibly stupid thing to do. It may well be that the police made an error of judgement. But he wilfully put them in a position where they had to make that judgement. Adam 07:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes Mr. Carr, an eyewitness on the platform is suggesting that the officers did not identify themselves. --www.timesonline.co.uk, 7/25/2005 -Kwh 11:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

The platform? You idiot: the chase began at street level! That is where the initial confrontation took place.

If you didn't want an answer, why did you ask the question? How do you know what I would or wouldn't do?! Actually, there are conflicting reports about him getting alerted. There is still no excuse for police to overpower and incapacitate, then shoot a private citzen in the head, no matter what the reason! I stand by my comment I would not have shot him 5 times in the head. As for an excuse about error in judgement: that's not going to bring the man back to his family, now, is it?

The police, from what news reports have stated, held Menezes to the ground, while another shot him in the back of the head. Is this honestly standard police operating procedure? If so: we don't want it in Australia.

Actually Im an Aussie and assauming we had the same threat level and assuming that the police genuinely believed hom to be threat, then these are exactly the skills/tactics we want used if the police genuinely believe they need to shoot to stop an attack. From a tactical point of view anyway. I agree that allowing the guy to leave his house and use public transport if they though he was a threat was dumb.

However the actual tactical engagement from what I've read was reasonable - even if it need never have taken place.

What most of you probably don't realise is that a shot to the head, even a shot to the brain does not guarantee instant incapacitation.

Instant incapactation only reliably occurs when you shoot the brain stem and a couple of other targets ( I don't recall their name - but I know where they are).

This is a target probably less than arond 2 inches in diameter, and needs fairly god shot placement as opposed to the whole head which is probably 7-8 inches in diameter.

In addition to the size of the target and the difficulaty in hitting it the head is very bony, so hits are more likely to be deflected and not travel true once they penetrate. And with low power weapons, like hand guns, especially handguns that are probably loaded with low penetration or frangible rounds (to reduce the risk of ricochet and a bullet exiting the target and hitting a bystander).

I used to shoot at lesat 200 rounds of 9mm pistol a week, usually more, before the gun laws here changed, and I would not then have been confident (not betting my life confident) of hitting a 2 inch circle with a single shot from more than about 5 yards - especially with the first unrehearsed shot against a moving target with tons of adrenaline coursing through me.

In other words instant incapacitation with one or two pistols shots is not garaunteed and certainly not trivial to achieve. You might stop someone from locomotion and you might stop them from having a lot of control over their limbs, but they may have sufficient movement, whether conciously controlled or not to detonate a bomb (this seems to be a point a lot of people are missing - dead things twitch after they have died - you don't want a guy with a detonator in his hand and a pile of palstique strapped to his body twitching. YOu want him categorically incapable of any movement as quickly as possible.

Everyone has heard of chickens with their heads cut off running around and I've seen a head shot kangaroo hop on for 5-10 metres before dropping.

I believe 5-10 shots is reasonable - the first shots may not even penetrate the skull

Even if they did hit, penetrate and killed the person, unless the persons brain stem or spinal cord was compeltely destroyed/severed it may still be capable triggering movement.

As for why shoot a guy who is pinned on the ground?

Well take your mobile phone if you have one and see if you can dial one handed. In fact not even dial, can you turn it off- that;s about how much dexterity you need to set off a bomb.

Do you think if a couple of blokes lay on top of you and pinned you down that you could still dial the phone? I think you could, I know I could - unless the blokes on otp of you were actually manipulating your hands with theirs - even then they risk setting off the device themsleves if there is one, and even if they don;t set it off, you may have sufficient grip to prevent them from getting the device from you in time.

I believe that a relatively simple device, like switch in the form of say a hostpital buzzer like device, or probably more to the point a piezo electric blasting machine, such as a claymore mine claquer would be easy to manipulate even if you had 3 guys pilled on top of you. I know for a fact these can be used one handed (thought it may not be encouraged).

That's why you might shoot someone even if they were physically pinned.

In addition a person might have any number of detonating devices secretted about their person and not all of them might require hands to detonate.

Yes shooting someone who has a "dead mans" switch might be a risk, but then again, not shotting someone who hasn't might also be a risk - and as yet there has as far as I know been no evidence of dead man's switches in the UK bombings.

Jason

Now, let's look at the statement by Ian Blair:

When asked by Sky Television if the police had shoot-to-kill instructions in such cases, Blair replied: 'They have to be that. Because there's no point in shooting at somebody's chest because that's where the bomb is likely to be.'

I've seen this sentence tons of times and it makes me sick, because that sentence is assuming that they had to shoot him in the first place, which isn't evident since he was already pinned down to the ground and incapable of moving! Explain that please, Mr. Blair. Rbarreira 13:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

And I'm sick and tired of seeing speculation like this. Were you there, chasing the suspect with the police? Were you there when he was shot? There is NO eveidence to suggest he was pinned down. Sorry everyone. --Tom1234 15:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

No, I wasn't there, but I know how to read and listen to news, why don't you try it? I've seen this reported as fact in more than one site, and it was the statement of eyewitnesses who were interviewed. Rbarreira 16:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Every eyewitness says he tripped and was then "bundled" there is a big difference between "bundled" and "pinned down". So unless you can provide a source (that has not been translated) then don't speculate, unless you want to turn this into a regular Internet discussion forum debate, in which case I'll be no part of it. --Tom1234 16:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[14] [15]. There are more... Rbarreira 16:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any eyewitness quotes, just a report saying he was pinned, which is probably opinion. --Tom1234 17:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Can I just point out something very simple to a few people, particularly Rbarreira: Information does not become fact simply because it is reported or related by a journalist. Journalists - particularly of the British variety - are second only to lawyers when it comes to creativity and sensationalism. For christ's sake, if you believe eye-witness reports that have appeared in the media then Jean Charles was wearing five different tops and jackets at the same time, and had a bomb-belt on with wires protruding. 62.25.106.209 12:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

He added: 'There's no point in shooting anywhere else because if they fall down they detonate it. It is drawn on the experience from other countries including Sri Lanka.'

'The only way to deal with this is to shoot to the head,' the Metropolitan Police commissioner said. (Source: Forbes)

Can you not see how ridiculous this is? The police must shoot the man in the head because "if they fall down they detonate it". Sorry? He was on the ground, pinned down by two police officers! Exactly how does shooting the man in the head assist with stopping the bomb from blowing up? If the man is pinned and can't actually move, how is he going to activate the bomb?

Furthermore, if the dead mans switch is a fail deadly switch, where it must be constantly pressed or activated or else it will explode, just how effective do you think those police officers would have been in stopping the bomb from going off? If the man really did have a bomb with one of these, then shooting him would have caused an explosing anyway, no? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Also, they allowed him to board and ride a bus before shooting him. I don't think Adam is interested in such questions. To him, Menezes is just stupid - end of story. - Xed 08:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

It's not possible they (the police) thought he had a bomb only after he ran away? They might have thought he was 'just' a suspect and wanted to see where he was going to. They may then have had cause to suspect he was actually going to do something and that is why they challenged him. He ran, so they chased. All speculation of course, but it just goes to prove that no-one knows the facts and should just shut up making statements that are unproven, completely and utterly POV and therefore pointless.

Police have no reason to believe a dead man's switch would have been used in this case. Therefore the armed police will follow policy which is shoot-to-stop; unfortunately, to stop a suicude bomber, this means shooting them in the head. Questions regarding stopping him before, during or just after the bus ride will be answered by the inquiry, everything else is speculation and we should NOT be let it into the article without references. --Tom1234 14:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

There must be a line that is never crossed - regardless of the desperate challenges that terrorists present - it just can't be allowed that our governments have people executed on the street because they may or may not be an immediate threat. --Brendanfox 09:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

BBC is reportin that he entered the country on a student visa which was not renewed. I was wondering how a Brazilian electrician got a work permit, and it seems clear that he didn't. It may be one possible reason why he ran, if he thought he was likely to be deported. Poor sod. -- Arwel 10:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Well one of my concerns is this: What do sucide bombers do? They explode. How far do you have to chase someone before you realise that they aren't exploding? Apparently across a ticket concourse, over a ticket barrier, down an escalator, across a platform and halfway through a tube carriage isn't far enough for the penny to drop. If he ain't exploding - he ain't a suicide bomber.

I like that logic. --Admiral Roo 20:21, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Three of the bombings of the 7th of July took place on tube trains. The also took place deep inside the tunnels and not at the stations in order to cause the maximum number of casulaties. I would imagine that the police feared that Jean Charles de Menezes had similar intentions. Jooler 20:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

My take. The police were indeed wrong. Even if they identified themselves properly, they should not have shot the man after he was on the ground, pinned down, tripped then tagged or just plain old taken down. Now as for if Jean was wrong in running, that depends on if the police identified themselves or not. It also depends on if on one hand you would not beleave anyone with them type of weapons saying police becuase it could be a gang of thugs acting like police. So Jean being wrong from running is a POV. --Admiral Roo 20:15, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Jean being right in running is also a POV.--Tom1234 20:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Since it has been already proved Jean Charles never ran from anyone, may I suggest where all the above people that asked "if he was inocent, why he ran from the police" should shove their patronizing comments? --Pinnecco 01:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Brazilian Slum

The following comment:

"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."

Is the biggest piece of bull I've read in weeks. This typical patronizing comment. Even if he DID lived in a slum, the reason why he ran is because he was taunted by a gang days before. --Pinnecco 09:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

You know the reason he ran? He told you did he? Oh no, that's right, he couldn't of: he's dead. Quit guessing stuff to support your view.

Not "MY VIEW". This is the view of his family, who said that he had no reason to run, and perhaps if he ran this might have been the reason why. Oh no, that's right, he didn't run after all. Quit writing crap to support YOUR view.

Well, places like Sao Paulo do have slums with shockingly high murder rates, and the Brazilian police are notorious for strong-arm tactics conducted with impunity. I don't think it's completely implausible to say -- and wasn't that a quote? We can report quotes. That said, I personally imagine it was a combination of fear of white gangs and fear of immigration problems. That's my own opinion, though. I did try to fix (and cut down) the (rambling) speculation paragrpah, but I see it's been mangled and fattened up again. --Dhartung | Talk 03:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

WRONG, so Wrong. I'm from Brazil and this is absurd nonsense - not to say is a patronizing comment. After all, the fact that Menezes was indeed a street-wise Brazilian would make him act in a much cooler situation. That is, being a Brazilian, that knows the street, he would have never ran from the police. Many witness said that no one heard any shouts of "POLICE". If a bunch of people shout at you "STOP STAY WHERE YOU ARE" and come towards you in an agressive way (i.e.: running as if they want to get you and probably kick the cr*p out of you), without presenting themselves as police officers, no uniforms and NO BADGES, what would you do? And what's with this "white gang" bit? Menezes was whiter that most of the London population.

I removed the comment about Brazilian murder from the article because it is speculative and not cited to an authoritative source. Also it seems like the Financial Times quote adequately makes the point in a way that doesn't slander Brazil. -Kwh 13:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Condolences

This section is used for your condolences for Jean Charles de Menezes.

May he rest in peace. --Admiral Roo 12:17, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

He doesn't look like a terrorist but instead looks like a very nice young man. What a tragic and unnecessary loss of life. I hope he rests in peace and his family is paid millions of pounds in compensation, which they truly deserve. And the people who shot him, they need some extensive retraining because it seems they learnt nothing at the Police academy. Pale blue dot 12:50, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Well I hope none of you have relatives who are killed by a suicide bomber that the police failed to stop because they were afraid of this kind of criticism. Adam 14:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I hope you don't have relatives who are killed by trigger-happy police who shot an innocent man in the head 5 times. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

First calling the innocent victim incredibly stupid, and then making veiled death threats. I can see a pattern emerging with Adam - Xed 14:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Adam certainly is a piece of work, isn't he? --Dhartung | Talk 16:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Adam, I don't think such remarks belong in the condolences section. I too hope no one has a relative who gets killed by a suicide bomber, but saying that the police should be stopping anyone using a death warrent executed without conscience and being afraid of such criticism is unwarrented. I don't think the police should have shot Jean when he was restrained by the police. They should have handcuffed him, searched him, and detained him for questioning. That should be "normal" police procedure. Instead they killed him after they had him on the ground immobilized. Crap. Once again I forget my sig. --Admiral Roo 16:56, July 25, 2005 (UTC) I hate these memory lapses of mine.

Whether or not he was completely immobilised is still a question that needs answering. But that is a topic best suited to another section. This is a tradegy, whatever the outcome of the investigation by the IPCC; and lets be thankful that we don't have to make decisions like the ones armed police have to make, and also that we will get to the bottom of this. The truth will be known in time, so while we are all waiting, lets not speculate. --Tom1234 15:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Adam, do you think that your comments fit in the condolences section as well? -- Perhaps you should work with other articles. Why don't you try the British National PartyPinnecco 10:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Will you all stop attacking Adam personally? I was attacking his argument, not Adam himself! Let's restrict our comments to the content of what Adam has written: after all, Adam is not the devil incarnate. Sheesh! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV section

I removed this bit as I think that as written it's more an opinion piece than part of an encyclopedic article.

"This would better be described as an execution rather than a killing. The police had plenty of opportunities to stop him. If he was considered to be a suicide bomber then why on earth let him board a crowded bus? To be shot 8 times whilst already helpless and pinned to the ground strongly suggests that the firearms officers concerned completely lost their self control. When combined with Sir Ian Blair ( the head of the Metropolitan Police ) stating that more innocent people may well be shot dead before the hunt for the bombers is over is hardly reassuring for an already nervous public."

- Chrism 23:56, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

17°C?

Whoa! That's beginning to get pretty chilly... No wonder he was wearing a large jacket. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• Depends on the temperature you're used to. I don't think it's inconceivable that someone born and raised in Brazil would find 17 degrees chilly enough to warrant heavier clothing than someone raised in the UK. Djbrianuk 10:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• The reference provided was for London, which is too larger area! The temperature in parts of London varies greatly due to winds coming up the Thames. I'm not saying it wasn't 17 degrees, but isn't there a better reference? --Tom1234 17:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Define "greatly". The exact temperature is not important. It's only worth mentioning because it explains why he was wearing a coat. Mirror Vax 18:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Depending on the tie of year it could be up to 5 degrees C; it's irrelevant anyway, Stockwell is SW9 which isn't too close to the Thames, so wouldn't get the cooling effets.--Tom1234 18:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Notes

Can we change the notes to be more like Windows 2000 or W. Mark Felt? You will need to use {{note}} and {{ref}} - Ta bu shi da yu 00:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Nothing on Brazilian public reaction

See the BBC article.

For Brazilians, the shooting by London police officers of 27-year-old Jean Charles de Menezes has turned conventional human rights wisdom on its head.

"Here in Brazil it's common for the police to act violently, especially against poor and black people," says Maria Luisa Mendonca of the Network for Justice and Human Rights in Sao Paulo.

"For us the police in England were always a model," she adds. "Human rights groups always studied how officers acted there. But not any more, after this situation."

In recent years, UK police officers have even travelled to Brazil to offer training, as part of a scheme run by the British Council.

also

In the Brazilian media, the killing has become the lead story, knocking a long-running government corruption scandal off the front pages.

1) The corruption scandal was never "knocked out of the front pages". I've seen O GLOBO and FOLHA DE SÃO PAULO for the past days and such remarks are quite exagerated. It made the headlines - of course, but the MENSALÃO CASE (the corruption scandal) is there.

2) To say that the British Police was always a model is a cliche (i.e.: "bias" as someone said here before), mainly attributed to Scherlock Holmes. I'm not sayin that they are not good - they are far better than many other police forces in the world. But let's not forget that the UK have an impressive dossier of miscariage of justice, and in the past years there has been cases of racism and unappropriate behaviour by some blach-sheeps at the British Police. I'm Brazilian, and I know that very well. --Pinnecco 10:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I think we should note this. Must combat systemic bias! - Ta bu shi da yu 00:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

How was he mistaken for an Asian?

This guy is whiter than me and I'm white. I was just wondering how the police could have possibly issued statements that he was Pakistani for over a day. Could it have been that a police officer had prior issues with this man and used this as an excuse to take him out, I know its unlikely.

Where are these statements from teh police saying he was asia? I heard a witness claim he was asian, not the police.

Reason for Suspicion

W/R/T this statement:

"Initially suspected of being involved in perpetrating the 21 July 2005 London bombings, he was later found to be uninvolved."

Is there an official statement from the police that the operation was initiated because they thought JCdM was 'one of the four', or was the operation initiated because they saw him leaving the 'address of interest' and suspected him of being an additional bomber? I think the distinction is relevant, and this statement might need reworded. -Kwh 14:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I cannot Understand

why a man can be killed by a police officer, in a democratic country as U. K., and they only beg pardon. It means anybody walking in the street can be killed by the police.

Pérez 80.58.40.235 15:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Dear Pérez,

You're a complete fool.

Regards,

Joe, UK

Dear Joe,

You are a complete tool.

Regards,

Ta bu shi da yu, Australia

Maybe because said country has been attacked by terrorists, everyone is afraid, and policemen, despite all their training to act properly in dangerous situations, are not perfect, thus their behavior in this situation, albeit misguided, is understandable? Stormwatch 16:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Oo, oo! The terrorists are attacking! Let's go about shooting people in the head. That will make the general public that much safer. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

This is POV and inappropriate for the article, of course. But the question of whether "anybody can be killed by the police" has more to do with how the rule of law will be applied. If the officers were negligent or reckless, they certainly can be prosecuted, and I believe under UK law they can also be sued for a wrongful death. At the very least careers will end because of this incident; it's far from over. --Dhartung | Talk 18:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Apart from Stormwatch's reasons, the police are not "only begging pardon", but perhaps the foreign media are not reporting all the facts. ALL cases of people killed by the police in the UK are investigated by the Police Complaints Commission, which has already started its investigation but may take months to report. Also, all deaths are inquired into by the local Coroner (probably with a jury), who I would probably guess will either return a verdict of "death by misadventure", "unlawful killing", or an open verdict. The policemen involved in the shooting are automatically removed from their armed duties until the investigations are complete, and depending on the Coroner's verdict they may well face prosecution for murder or manslaughter. The Metropolitan Police will also have to pay compensation to Mr Menezes' family - back in 1983 they wrongly identified Stephen Waldorf as an escaped armed bank robber and shot him 5 times (he recovered) and they paid him £150,000, which allowing for inflation would probably be nearer £750,000 now, not allowing for the fact that Mr Menezes didn't survive. It's worth noting that in the 8 years 1997-2004 the British police opened fire in a TOTAL of 8 incidents, which is one reason why this present incident is causing such an uproar -- the fallout from the 1999 shooting of an innocent man by the Met still hasn't settled yet. That said, statistically the Met are twice as likely to open fire as any other British police force... -- Arwel 19:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a link the the IPCC website is necessary in the 'See also' or 'External Links' section, their website is [16] forgot my sig again... --Tom1234 17:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I always wanted to move to Scotland, but now that I know that the UK police are trigger happy, and have been for quite some time, I think I will not move their. It was on my list of the countries I wanted to move to out of the US. They were:

• Canada
• Scotland
• Russia
• Sweden
• Japan
• France

Also, in Sweden, I know they speek Swedesh as well, but do they also speek English, or only a handfull like Ace of Base speek English? --Admiral Roo 16:10, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Hi there, sorry to interrupt, but since I come from Scotland, and live in the city of Glasgow. I wish to point out that the Scottish police are completly different from those in England and Wales. Yes they were the same uniforms et cetra -- but they are more friendlier but they can get furious with some people who do not comply with their rules, but they have a completly different reputation from Met. police. I totally agree with Tom1234 (below me).

Scotland is only part of the UK and isn't policed by the Met. The UK police are *not* trigger happy, one shot innocent man, however tragic, does not make them trigger happy. Even past shootings by the Met wouldn't make me think they were trigger happy. The Met has a very good rep, their armed police do not want to just shoot anyone they see. There are too many unanswered questions for anyone to be drawing any conclusions. --Tom1234 16:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh come on! Shots fired in EIGHT incidents in EIGHT YEARS in the ENTIRE UK makes the UK police trigger happy? Virtually any US police department could beat that record. -- Arwel 10:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I have a point that relates the the EIGHT incidents post and which has a serious question regarding the main article. I would like to see some closer analysis in the main article about the order of events in the train carriage. This is because the impression I have so far is that the public were ordered off the train and were moving away from De Menezes when the assault began. From that moment onwards the risk to the public was diminishing and if De Menezes had wanted to kill he would not have waited so long but instead would have made an attempt to detonate explosives as fast as possible. Had the police officers been trained by special forces they would have acted calmy and assessed this changing situation while adapting their response (including the possibility of tactical retreat)instead of focussing in tightly on the man that had been identified and shooting him. For instance, they would have also been moving around and scanning the area for other threats. That the assault was fast and directed linearly at the one man, without any adaptation to the changing situation, begs a whole slew of questions including the possibility of a real shoot-to-kill command given that the officers thought the man was a terrorist. This tends to be supported (IMO) by the unanswered questions in many of the shootings by police over the years where the threat to the public appears small and the real danger is to the police officers due to putting themselves in what they perceive to be a dangerous situation. The implication is that as soon as a situation gets risky then from that moment on safety catches come off and public safety (including that of suspects) goes to the wind while the police take unnecessary risks, because they think they have a criminal and they think they have an excuse.

You think protecting their own lives isn't justification? The life of a policeman is no less valuable than that of anyone else. They put their lives on the line to protect, not out of fun, and yuo seem to be implying they should not protect themselves, SqueakBox 15:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

If the police really wanted to protect themselves they would have begun to back off to a safe distance along with the people who had begun to evacuate, and then contained the situation that way rather than engaging in the heroics of manhandling him. Think of Harry Stanley and the way the police officers approached him without taking cover. Why would they do that unless they wanted a showdown and to risk their own lives? It's that kind of barging-in which so often leads to the deaths of innocent people who get no chance to question what is happening. Either the police have inadequate training in the likely responses of innocent people when challenged with firearms (in the US innocent people have been known to jump out of high windows) or they have a default view that anything but 'freezing' indicates a threat. Members of the public are not used to taking orders, we live in a liberal society, and if a police officer gives me orders gun or not the first thing I would do would be to act normally and approach him or her while asking Why What Where etc, my hands would go in or out of my pockets or I might scratch my head. I certainly wouldn't put my hands in the air until I had seen a solicitor because I haven't committed a crime and I know it. That is a normal response. Challenged in such circumstances any ex-soldier would instinctively dive for cover or run, and that has to be expected also. One day a police officer with a gun is going to challenge an ex SAS man or a martial arts expert and there will be the sort of tragedy they are not expecting. I am saying that there appears to be a disparity between basic principles of how the police should act when carrying firearms and how they actually did act in Menezes case and others. I didn't mean this to be a discussion but was pointing out that when innocent people are shot the actions of the police always seem to have exacerbated the situation and I am interested in seeing the facts.

Swedish police do occasionally shoot unarmed innocent people as well. One good thing about getting shot by Swedish police is that you will die (hopefully instantly) because they use hollow point bullets (prohibited by the Hague Convention) - so that the bullet will not penetrate your body and harm someone else.--Ezeu 22:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Interesting comment about prohibited ammunition and the Hague Convention, since now it seems that the bullets used to kill Menezes were also forbidden (dum-dum bullets). --Pinnecco 16:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Edits by 12.150.146.82

Reverting these edits (editorial and POV), and pasting them in here. Discuss if there's anything worthy for the article here: -Kwh 16:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

This unfortunate "shoot-first, talk later" policy of normally unarmed British officers has been openly questioned, indefensible apart from the political climate following the 7 July 2005 London Bombings, and the 21 july 2005 London Bombings on the previous day; even as they initially reported they had presumably killed an Asian man. As conjecture goes, perhaps he rightly assumed these plainclothes thugish-looking men shouting his way and chasing him did not have his best interests at heart. While speculations run high as to why he ran, as if for his life, Mr. Menezes' authoritative voice on the topic has been silenced by the undercover officers who yelled directives, chased him, caught and tackled him, and then fired five bullets into his head in front of dozens of onlookers.

Menezes is yet another needless casualty in the post-11 September 2001 Western World's War on Terrorism. An enlightened man, within four months of arriving in the UK, he had a good grasp of the English language, and spent his time earning money to send back to his family in Brazil. --by User:12.150.146.82

Category: Accidental Deaths.

This categorisation seems wildly inappropriate for this article. No other death at the hands of police is thus categorised, and if we follow the wikilink we see that this category refers to motor accidents. The death was NOT an accident - it was a wilful killing. Whether one believes that the killing was justified or not is another matter; the point is that it was not accidental. Therefore I have removed the link. Jmc29

I'm not going to change the cat, indeed I'd recommend that no causality is listed until the inquest has reported, but there are quite a few POVs in the article and this is one of them; whilst the shooting of this individual was not an accident in the usual sense of the word it was not pre-meditated that *he* was to be shot as opposed to any other specific individual. As such 'accident' will probably end up as "death by misadventure". --Vamp:Willow 18:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

-You say "it was not pre-meditated that *he* was to be shot as opposed to any other specific individual" - we do not know this. And "death by misadventure" is something quite different from an accident. If I am in the kitchen and I slip with a knife and cut my finger, that is an accident. If someone runs in with a knife and deliberately cuts my finger, that could be any number of things but it can never be called an "accident". I would quite prepared to have this killing labelled a "mistake", once it is proven such, but I reiterate (probably tediously) that it was not an accident, and nor is it POV to point this out - merely correct use of the language. Jmc29

There is now a new Category:Innocent people killed by police, which was probably needed anyway. It fits much better. --Dhartung | Talk 22:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

"Both"?

The quotes in the last paragraph of the Background section repeatedly use the word "both", but the only person that seems to be referred to is de Menezes. What's up with that? Could it be clarified to be less confusing without totally destroying the quotes?:

That was becoming a very confusing paragraph. I reworded to avoid some of the complexity. --Dhartung | Talk 21:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Updates in Brazil Wikiportal

I've just added a few details about the body's return to Brazil in the Brazil Wikiportal ("In the news" section). I expect that more will be added tomorrow, as the body arrives in the country and is laid to rest. Feel free to visit and use whatever pieces of information you see fit in the article. At your disposal for more details, Redux 14:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Separate article for shooting?

Should the shooting details be put into a separate linked article? My reasoning is that the page on Jean should be just that, a page on Jean. The shooting will result in many pages of reports from the IPCC etc. forgot my sig, and appaling spelling! --Tom1234 15:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Not now. If the article gets too big, then subarticles could be created. Mirror Vax 16:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that, as the situation evolves and questions are answered by the inquest, the verbiage will be slimmed down. The chronological events of the shooting should stay with JCdM, as people consulting WP for reference purposes would lookup JCdM, as opposed to e.g. Shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes. Also, though I don't want to be callous, JCdM's life story outside the incident is no more encyclopedic than yours or mine. I think what he has in the preface and Bio section is both adequate and respectful.

I do think that the details of the Operation Kratos policy, public response thereto, and controversy deserve their own article, which i am working on here. I think there might be a use for a page on the Inquest, depending on precisely what comes out of it. If the inquest works, then there will be no doubt or unanswered questions, and the undisputed events can be detailed under JCdM, with a simple link to the inquest. If the inquest doesn't work, then there will be controversy, and it will deserve its own page. -Kwh 16:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Question about Escola Estadual São Sebastião

Is this the same as ? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Of course not. USP is a (rather famous) university; the other one is probably just a normal school (Google seems to find more than one school by that name). --cesarb 03:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, I didn't know. I know virtually nothing about this area of the world. Have fixed my change! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

New facts

Someone should incorporate both the turnstyle jumping and jacket discrepancies into the article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1537613,00.html

See under 'Pursuit and shooting'. Although the refs looked messed up now.--Tom1234 13:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Category

Should this article belong in the category Police Abuse? --Admiral Roo 16:08, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

How exactly was this guy abused? He was innocent, and he was shot dead. No police abuse, but it *could* be an unlawful killing by police; we'll have to wait and see what the inquest turns up. --Tom1234 16:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

What category Police Abuse? I could find no such category. Mirror Vax 17:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Your right, I was thinking of police brutality. --Admiral Roo 17:32, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

There's no police brutality category either. Mirror Vax 18:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I added Innocent people killed by police as a subcategory of Human rights abuses; it was formerly only a subcat of Law enforcement. --Dhartung | Talk 18:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Bold edit

I'm about to commit a bold edit on the article, rearranging a bunch of content for flow. Please read it fully and consider it carefully before reverting. I haven't actually removed any content that was not redundant, and only added or changed as necessary for style. There might be a few place where {{ref}}s and {{note}}s are misordered that might need fixed. I think including only undisputed facts and not allegations or witness quotes in the 'Background' and 'Pursuit and shooting' makes things flow better; also, as events are clarified by the inquest, the background can be updated, and the fact that the facts were in dispute at the time will still be clear (from historical perspective). Give it a little while to grow on you. -Kwh 22:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I thought this was a good idea, and I helped it along by adding subsections -- that will discourage mixing information here and there. It also permitted moving the Immigration status section underneath. --Dhartung | Talk 08:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Six months later, this article still needs some substantial work. Mainly, I suggest, it needs to be clear what the initial claims and beliefs were (he was wearing a "bulky coat"; he "jumped the turnstile"; etc.). Right now, the story is told as it happened but with very little reference to the incorrect police claims that made their actions seem reasonable and defensible initially. This is especially important, I think, now that a very similar incident has happened in the US with the Rigoberto Alpizar case, where initial claims by the police made the incident seem reasonable, but later investigation has revealed it to be an overreaction. --Tysto 20:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Offtopic/JCdM's route

This is a little editorial, but I was checking London bus route maps and for Menezes to walk from Scotia Road to the nearest stop for the number 2 Bus (if he took no shortcuts), he would have walked nearly 600m/1968ft! I could understand the police not being able to intercept him on the way to the bus if it were a few houses down, but that's a pretty long way to let someone walk if you think they're a terrorist suicide bomber. Anyways, I'd add the distance walked to the article (to replace the speculative "5 minutes" with something a reader can visualize) if there is any proof of the actual route he walked. -Kwh 02:20, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

This article indicates that he "cut through" at some point, so the walk was somewhere between 250m ("as the crow flies") and 600m. This article indicates that his entire trip (walk and bus) took 26 minutes. -Kwh 03:06, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

According to the Transport for London website, the number 2 bus from Tulse Hill to Stockwell tube station takes 24 minutes; which would indicate the Australian News article is probably inaccurate. --Tom1234 05:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

After more investigation on the TFL website it looks like the bus stop closest to Scotia Road is the Upper Tulse Hill stop. The number 2 bus stops there at 9:42am, it would take 25 minutes to get to Stockwell tube station. Although I can't get the exact location, from looking at the maps, it seems logical the bus stop is on the corner of Upper Tulse Hill Road anbd the A204. This would make the bus stop less than 400m from Scotia Road, see Streetmap. --Tom1234 05:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The Aerial Photo makes a very nice view... apparently the Scotia Road flats are the brick-colored roofed structures closest to the logo Cities Revealed, and the bus stop is probably at the location on the A204 where it looks like a bus happens to be stopped... (fancy that)

From what I'm reading, the bus trip from Tulse Hill to Stockwell takes about 12-17 minutes, and buses arrive at the stop every 7-8 minutes, so your maximum time would be 25 minutes (if you just missed the bus). It appears to be a little over 2km Tulse Hill to Stockwell, though my measurements are imprecise. -Kwh 06:45, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Discovery of mistaken identity/innocence and public reaction

Mirrorvax: I see you changed the heading to 'Discovery of innocence…' - I initially considered that as the section title, but thought it wrong for two reasons; innocence implies accusation and acquittal of a crime, and also innocence cannot be adjudged - a defendant can only be found not guilty at trial, which means that the accusation was unproven. I knew mistaken identity was imperfect, so I'm open to some different wording of this heading anyways... -Kwh 03:06, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

I don't like either. I thought about Admission of uninvolvement as a more accurate way of putting things. The police didn't "discover" that he was uninvolved -- they failed to discover involvement. Putting it as a police admission also dovetails the public reation being combined into this section. --Dhartung | Talk 08:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can see there was no mistaken identity, the police did not mistake him for one of the bombers who escaped the bomb attempts, rather he was mistaken for a new bomber. So it was his intentions rather then his identity that was mistaken.(I know they also mistook his race but I don't think that=mistaken identity)--JK the unwise 11:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Right, that's why I changed it. From what is publicly known, this appears not to be a case of mistaken identity. Rather, he was followed because of where he lived and because he looked nonwhite. Mirror Vax 15:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Jumping the barrier

"According to Menezes' family, however, the police admitted in a private meeting that Menezes' did not actually jump over the ticket barrier and may have used a standard London Travel Card to pass the turnstile"

I see no evidence that "the police admitted in a private meeting ..." from the link given i.e. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1537457,00.html It merely states "Speaking at a press conference after a meeting with the Metropolitan police" - the article does not hint that the Met informed the family of anything regardign this. Jooler 06:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree, Sir Ian Blair was on TV yesterday (streamable via BBC News) saying the Met had never held meetings with any of the family. --Tom1234 12:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe I reworked that sentence from someone elses original, but I also believe that I specifically saw the wording that the "police admitted" in a "private meeting" attributed to the family in another media article. The wording right now is OK, I'll see if I can find the article I was thinking of. It seems like political groups are getting involved now and might be turning the hyperbolic rhetoric up.-Kwh 14:55, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

This should clarify things

Unfortunately that is a claim by the family, an 'involved' party, and would be considered bias. --Tom1234 16:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

It's encyclopedic to state that the family made this statement. We're not talking about including biased statements without attribution. Compare "Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, assassinated President Kennedy" and "According to the Warren Commission, Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, assassinated President Kennedy". But it is correct that the reference link does not prove this statement. -Kwh 20:35, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I seem to have taken it the wrong way. --Tom1234 20:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Here's the article and quote I had read:

'Vivien Figueiredo, 22, said police told her that he was wearing a lightweight denim jacket and not a bulky coat that could have hidden an explosive belt underneath. They had also admitted that he used his travelcard to gain access to the station. Ms Figueiredo said: "They are saying he did absolutely nothing wrong when he was killed, so why don’t they say all this publicly?"'

I knew my photographic memory was good, I just don't take enough notes ;) -Kwh 00:19, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

SAS/Gibraltar/IRA

I reinserted this case because it bears increasing similarity to the Menezes incident (with the major difference, of course, that the IRA really had planted a bomb). The incident was removed on the justification that it was military, not civilian police, but the case went to the ECHR and thus was subject to civilian oversight; I strongly suspect that a similar legal path may follow for the police in this case. Additionally, the question of detonators was the urgency which led to the SAS shoot-to-kill policy, which is uncannily similar to this one.

I did trim the text a little, as it wasn't all relevant. The incident deserves its own full Wikipedia article, probably. --Dhartung | Talk 06:51, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Citations and Sources

Why on Earth are we using this difficult method of citing sources? The Wiki software is set up to make it easy to do, all you need to do is put the URL in square brackets and it creates a link straight there, like this: [17] What's added by making these a link to a note at the bottom of the page instead? All it does is make editing difficult. Evercat 17:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

It's also crazy that e.g. note 12 in the text links to note 16 in the notes section, note 11 goes to note 4, and so on. Evercat 17:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it's good, because those editors who wish to can hide the inline notes by editing their personal style sheet. This is getting to be the de facto standard, and favoured by many. Also, it's considerably difficult to add URLs that don't expire into the notes - and note when you last retrieved the web page. The other reason is that you have no idea which article might be being referred to, and many times I've have clicked on a link only to find an expired or archived page. This meant that I couldn't determine what we were referencing. There are many, many reasons why this notation system is superior. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

The citation style guide strongly urges sourcing facts, especially controversial ones, and says that even making an in-line link as Evercat suggests is better than no citation at all, and much more important than the question of how the citation is formatted. The in-line style is certainly much easier when an article is being frequently updated and changed. The numbering problems you point out are one of the reasons that numbered footnotes are, as the guide says, "controversial" on Wikipedia, partly due to limitations with the MediaWiki software, and partly due to the longstanding practice of in-line links, which can combine in ... unattractive ways. ;-) The style guide suggests that textual reference citations be used:

ABBA is a lame band. (Bangs, Creem, September 13, 1978).

with the appropriate source material given a full treatment in the References section, preferably using one of the templates available on that page. Bottom line: I think we can fix the two or three in-line links to fit with the numbered footnote style, and it won't cause too much of a problem. I'm not interested in the effort necessary to fully conform with one or more persons' sense of how these should work; I just want to take what we have and eliminate the errors. --Dhartung | Talk 20:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

The suggestion to use this citation style was from Ta bu shi da yu, and I think it's necessary. The case for footnotes with details is adequately made at Wikipedia:Footnote3. There's also some scripts there which are meant to make converting inline links to notes easier, though I haven't been able to make them work. I'd like if Wikimedia could be made to fix the numbering issue, although it can be fixed with difficulty by using {{ref_num}}. -Kwh 03:35, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

I think I need to own up to the first sugestion of "proper referencing" in the to do list at the top of this talk page - I think I also introduced the first footnote using the Wikipedia:Footnote3 method. Ta bu shi da yu later modified the to do list and added more footnotes. Therefore it is all my fault!

I'll give an example of why I think this type of referencing is of use in an article like this one (after the first few days of rapid editing, when I think inline links are best as they limit edit conflicts) and why I think textural references (e.g. Blogs et al. 1066) are approprate for some articles, but not here. We should, at some point near the top of the article note that Menezes was shot 8 times and we must give a source for this information. We need to give some additional info too - that until the inquest opened we, and everybody else, thought that he was shot five times. We may want to add that one of the witnesses only reported 4 shots. Now we could do this in the text, with inline or textural references, but this would soon get quite long and hard to read (e.g. "It was reported at the inquest that Menezes was shot 8 times [REF] in the head but early reports sugested that he had been shot only 4 [REF] or 5 [REF] times" and to confuse further the two second refrences may be to the same place). In footnote we can say something like "A postmortem showed that Menezes was shot 8 times, 7 times in the head[INLINEREFS]. Early reports by Mr Blogs who was on the train sugested that Menezes was only shot 5 times...".

For the record I like Wikipedia:Footnote2 better. Andreww 08:44, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Image Copyright Status

Please note that the image of JCdM is currently under {{copyvio}} at Wikipedia Commons and may be deleted, as the Public Domain status is in question. If anyone can verify that it is public domain, please post in that discussion with proof. It is apparently from a Brazilian Gov't issued ID which was given to news agencies by JCdM's family, but this is unproven and copyright status of Brazilian Gov't documents is unclear. Note that it must be PD worldwide, or under a free-as-in-free copyleft license to be on WP Commons, but if it is under 'fair use' or some other use and redistribution agreement it can possibly be uploaded to en.wikipedia. -Kwh 15:32, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Just would like to notice that while the Brazilian Government may claim proprietary rights over the documents it issues, the photo in a Brazilian ID Card is taken and paid for by the individual card holder, so I believe it is him (or, in the case of a deceased person as is this, his family) who owns the copyright. --200.161.164.56 16:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the situation at this point is that it probably is a passport photo. There is another copy of the photo showing a date at lower right, and there's another picture showing Menezes' mother holding a similar/same photo apparently without the date, so he probably had the pictures taken for the passport and gave his parents a copy. Unfortunately this is all very speculative and proves nothing, so the photo should probably be uploaded to en.wiki, but we still need some research to prove that the photo was released with permission from the family. I've seen it attributed to AP, Reuters, and Menezes Family in various places. -Kwh 21:36, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

While this might seem logical, i'm sure that governments around the world would claim the copyright to the whole document including the photo that has been submitted, regardless of the fact that many countries actually require a person to pay for ids, and supply their own photographs. Beta m (talk)

Arguendo, documents that are a creation of the United States Government are considered to be property of the people of the United States, and thus uncopyrightable. I think you'll find that in the United States, state agencies will often weasel around this by using contractor agencies to create various things; for instance, there have been some localities where the building code, which all people are required to abide by in building their own homes, is copyrighted by a private company and cannot be freely copied or distributed. It's despicable given that in all cases it's a work for hire paid for by the taxpayer's dollars, but generally a government won't try to be so bald-faced as to claim ownership of a derivative without any clear legal rationale. -Kwh 21:36, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

PrincessJO edit

Outside Stockwell station, police claim that they contravened standing^[18] orders for dealing with suicide bombers by challenging Menezes and ordering him to stop.

The reference cited does not contain the words "contravene" or "standing orders". The police have publicly claimed that a challenge was given to Menezes (per Ian Blair) and also that the policy does not require per se that police officers challenge anyone before using deadly force, if they feel the public is at risk. They have not claimed (in any reference I've seen) that the giving of the challenge contrevened orders. The bit in the Scotsman also does not source the "confidential briefing papers" (presumably Operation Kratos) which state that officers should "not attempt to approach, challenge and/or negotiate" with suspected bombers, which is presumably what the reference to "standing orders" is. This sort of thing ought to remain in disputed facts until proven/attributed. -Kwh 21:52, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

IPCC Leak

I've tweaked some of the "disputed" section based on reports on C4 news based on a leak of evidence gathered by the IPCC investigation. This will probably be on other news sites shortly --Sully 18:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I put much of that information in before, sourced to a Guardian article. For whatever reason, User:Kwh was very eager to remove it. - Xed 19:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Reading the article some parts of it do sound somewhat speculative, it probably merited toning down the certainty of some of the statements but it probably shouldn't have been completely reverted. The evidence revealed this evening certainly seems a lot more solid.--Sully 21:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Xed, the information which you added from The Observer on Sunday was not in fact based on these alleged leaked documents, and actually contradicts the ITV revelations in multiple places, because it was based on old claims and old information. Please read carefully.

Also, to others, please mind your accuracy on these revelations and others. If ITV claims that police documents say "The moon is made of green cheese", but police refuse to confirm or deny, don't say "police claim the moon is made of green cheese", or even "the moon is made of green cheese". If you want to add this information to an encyclopedia article, say "According to the documents (or the ITV report), the police believe the moon is made of green cheese. Police would not confirm the allegation due to an ongoing investigation." Also mind verb tense. -Kwh 22:30, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Sully - I think that it's good policy to append the additional information on IPCC (more like you've been doing) as it comes out rather than rewriting the narrative. It seems like there are some anonymous editors that want to use the bits from the leaked report to rewrite from the beginning in a way that damns police and introduces a POV, even though the IPCC report has not been officially released and could differ from what ITV alleges.

I would say that the article has a very nice flow as it is, especially the lede, Biography, Background..., Pursuit..., and Disputed.... I would advocate that the later IPCC revelations should become a new section, rather than rewriting or tangling the narrative up by going back to 'Here is what happened, but person A said this and person B said that.'

Any other opinions? -Kwh 06:28, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Well, when (or if) the leaks become confirmed, it would silly to give prominence to a false narrative. The IPCC report would have to be expanded to fill the entire article, and the current story relegated to it's own 'initial claims' section. This may well be easier if we begin by tangling things up right now.--Fangz 18:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't disagree, I think from the taste we have of what could potentially be in the IPCC report, the true version of events and controversy over police dissemblance and policy might overshadow the controversy to date, and might even warrant moving the majority to another article (perhaps an article on the ensuing court case).

The existing subsection on the IPCC leak could very easily become a main section on the IPCC report (since the leaked details won't warrant mention once the real report is available). I do think a little planning of the restructure can avoid the article being tangled up unduly while the re-org is going on. I also think the current content is pretty well done and can just be condensed and re-used in the new context (basically what you said, 'initial claims').

I think that this is a pretty good quality article that I'd hate to see it get too banged up, especially since this article is currently on the Brazil portal and will likely continue to be linked from Wikinews and the Main Page as the story continues. -Kwh 19:42, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, now the IPCC have had a meeting with the parents [19] and they have said that this basically repeated the information from the leak. Caution is great, but I think the ITV leak is now rather more than just an allegation.--Fangz 12:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you reading the same article? The article at that link says... well I'll just quote it:

"Lawyers for the family of the innocent Brazilian shot dead by police demanded today to be told whether misinformation about the killing was incompetence by officials or "something sinister"."

"...said many of their urgent questions remained unanswered after meeting investigators this morning."

"The IPCC had not been able to give any answers about the misinformation."

Nothing in there equates to "repeated the information from the leak". It does allege a few interesting things; it alleges Ian Blair tried to slow down the investigation, alleges the IPCC claimed there could be delays of two to three years... but it does not mean what you think it does. It's not about caution, it's about being even vaguely accurate. This is editing an encyclopedia, not investigative reporting. -Kwh 12:42, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

IPCC generally

The following addition occured recently in the IPCC section and has been removed by me:

"IPCC commissioner Mehmuda Mian Pritchard, a commissioner of the IPCC responsible for this investigation is herself now subject to a formal complaint for attempting to stifle complaints into senior police operatives of the National Crime Squad. After contact with the IPCC on 24/05/2005, these complaints were initially rejected by Ms Pritchard but were upheld on appeal on 31/08/2005. The complaint against Ms Pritchard remains outstanding."

This I find very interesting. However I've not heard it elsewhere, whether in mainstream media or in something like Private Eye which is good for covering these things. Does anybody have a source for this. If so please put it back. Lucifer(sc) 18:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

This apparently is part of someone's activism, see this page, reference "Complaint against the Commissioner of the IPCC" near the bottom of the (long) page. Someone appears to be on a general campaign against the IPCC for other reasons and WP is being used to spread the propaganda. -Kwh 06:09, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Osman Hussain

Is there a source for police believing Menezes to be Osman Hussain? Evercat 22:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah it was in the Channel 4 article that Kwh removed from the article [20] "Surveillance officers wrongly believed he could have been Hussain Osman, one of the prime suspects, or another terrorist suspect.". I see he removed the pic too.... - Xed 22:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Xed - please stop the unfounded accusations. I put the photo in a comment because I reworked the ITV revelations in an edit, then noticed that the photo was there but there isn't a corresponding graf yet on the Osman allegation. I also did not "remove" the Channel 4 article, I only used a different link to precisely the same story. -Kwh 22:52, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Put back the photo and the link - Xed 22:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

You can do that yourself, if you think it would improve the article.

Two things: First, you may have noticed that I uploaded a higher res image for Osman Hussain, and I also put what I believe to be the correct copyright status; make sure that you tag your uploads with Image copyright tags in future.

Secondly, I also uploaded an image showing the CCTV images for all 4 21/7 suspects at 21 July London Bombing Suspects CCTV.jpeg. I think if you want to include an image to illustrate that the Metro may have suspected that JCdM was one of them, this is a more NPOV image to use as it represents what was available at the time of JCdM's shooting (i.e. the evidence on which the suspicion was based), whereas the other Osman photo was taken after he was apprehended a week later. -Kwh 04:41, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree - using that image may in fact be POV pushing. Why? Because we don't know that the police who shot him made their identification on the basis of that image. We do know that the police released only these images to the press, but that image was itself only a single still frame of a moving CCTV footage. The police very likely did have additional information that they felt was not in the public interest to publish. For example, witness accounts, identikit drawings, and perhaps other photographs. (We only now know about the address information that lead them to the flats)--81.79.35.21 12:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Excessive linking in the opening paragraph makes it annoying to read. Why do people feel they have to link everything? Mediawiki needs a feature to let users suppress all links unless, for example, the mouse is passed over the article.

It has such a feature, actually, though it's slightly obscure. Create a user account then create the page User:YourUserName/monobook.css and, to that page, add the lines:

a:link {color: #000000; text-decoration: none;}
a:visited {color: #000000; text-decoration: none;}
a:hover {color: #0000ff; text-decoration: underline;}
a:active {color: #00ccff; text-decoration: underline;}

(the order is important) Evercat 12:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

pronunciation

i would like for the article to state at the beginning how his name is pronounced. would add it if i knew the answer. SaltyPig 07:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Funeral

Here is a BBC source for details. Anyone want to add this information? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I uploaded a new photo

Image:Jean Charles de Menezes.jpg --Revolución (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Could you add some copyright info to the photo? Did you take it? Is it from a news report?--JK the unwise 17:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

here's the news article it's from: [21] I don't think its copyrighted. Why would it be? --Revolución (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

It looks like a family shot. They probally gave it to be used in news stories. They may still own the copyright. Have you seen it in any other news stories? If you add a Image copyright tags then the picture can be used in the article.--JK the unwise 17:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Most of the photos have been credited "(AP/Menezes Family/HO)" (HO meaning handout) indicating that the photo was handed out at a press conference, thus © belongs to the Menezes'. It's an assumption, but I assume since most of the agencies crop the photo and otherwise use it in whatever way necessary for their news purposes, that the photo was released with no limits on use or redistribution. I think this is a fair assumption made in good faith. I've used the image tag {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} with an explanation of the handout situation. -Kwh 22:33, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Who shot him?

Who shot Jean Charles de Menezes? Have the names of the policemen involved been released? --Revolución (talk) 00:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC

It is highly unlikely that the undercover police officers involved will be named unless there is a criminal case against them, and that also appears unlikely. The British police tend to protect their officers even in the face of public enquiries into alleged wrong doing. The inquiry into the deaths of four IRA members shot by the SAS in Gibraltar was resisted for many years and we still do not know their names. IMO it would be better all round for public confidence if the police came clean when there are mistakes or criminal actions on their part, but they always resist this even when sensitive intelligence is not involved.

Forged stamp on visa?

The article previously stated "They also said that that the style of the stamp on his visa had not been in use on the date indicated, implying it was forged." (I took this out.) The source was listed as this, but that source never implies the stamp may have been forged. Is there a source for the assertion? – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 17:02, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

The statement was correct. The Home Office said "the stamp on his visa was not in use on the date indicated" [22] - this implies that it was forged. Jooler 20:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Image of body on floor of train: confirmed as CCTV, handheld video or still camera?

Has the source of the image of the body on the floor of the train been confirmed? It seems to have be taken from a strange angle for a CCTV camera. Nobody else is present in the background - how soon after the shooting was this image taken? Had the carriage been cleared? Also has it been "cropped" for taste/decency reasons, or does the original image not show the head area (convenient for media reporting!)? I would speculate that the image comes from a forensic examination some time after the shooting.

Update - Thanks to User:kwh for the edit, replacing "CCTV image" with "photo".

The photo was also on the front page of The Guardian a day after the leaked documents happened. In another newspaper (can't remember which) it showed a similar photo: it had pictures of the number markers that CSI's (forensics in UK) use when evidence is photographed. Hence, I think this would have to be a forensic's photo. 17:13, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

"If ya can't beat em..."

In view of the fact that very few editors have even attempted to converse with me on the talk page before editing about my concerns over treating the leaked IPCC documents as authoritative, I've decided to go with the consensus. I've restructured the article with the leaked documents version of events as primary and the disputed events secondary. I think this reads a lot better; hope you like it. The article should be adequately prepared for when the IPCC investigation is made official. -Kwh 05:03, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Well yes, but you have the police claiming they followed him because he was wearing "heavy clothing" but you've noted that he was wearing a denim jacket! In fact, the IPCC report quotes the police as saying that they followed him solely because he emerged from the building. They couldn't identify him. The bit about bulky clothes was chaff. You can't keep saying they were suspicious of his bulky clothes when you have made it plain that he wasn't actually wearing bulky clothes! It's quite common to wear a light jacket on an English summer morning and a jeans jacket certainly wouldn't arouse any suspicion. If it did, the police would be executing half the population of London. Grace Note 03:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Grace: you're part right, part wrong... per contemporaneous reports, "His 'clothing and suspicious behavior at the station added to their suspicions,' a police statement said." [23] Unfortunately Google News is taking reports from 7/21 offline at the time, that was one of the few sources to police I could find. However, you are right that the specific use of the word 'heavy' seems to have been attributed directly to witnesses at the time. "Witnesses said he was wearing a heavy padded coat when plainclothes police chased him into a subway car", ibid.

I've re-read the article as well as sources with a keen eye and I think that the "temperature+clothing" argument, much like the "south asian appearance" argument, was a complete canard and press construction.

Although the police did say the clothing added to the suspicions, they did not specifically say the clothing and the temperature multiplied the suspicion. In other words, if JCdM was in a skin-tight spandex workout outfit, concealing nothing, then they couldn't very well suspect him of being a bomber, but wearing a jacket which could conceal something added slightly to their suspicion basis, which was based on leaving the address.

I think I can come up with an edit which will fix this, will get to work on that. -Kwh 16:02, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Metro police

I have never heard this abbreviation used about the London police before - the abbreviation "the Met" is much more usual. It's probably best abbreviated simply to "police" since it should be no surprise that it was the London police carrying out a shooting in London related to a London bombing, but if there's a need to abbreviate we should avoid making up a new phrase for it. Unless this phrase has been common currency for years and I've just somehow missed it. — ciphergoth 06:14, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I've already modified this assuming it had been written by a non-Londoner. I've never read or heard this usage in the press or on television in the last 10 years so I thought nothing of just editing this. --Sully 12:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

No, it's still the Met. 'Metro police' sounds very much like an Americanism. -- Necrothesp 14:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Page title

It has been noted on this talk page that Jean Charles de Menezes's life other then the shooting itself was non-notable for an encycopedia, people have thus been discurraged from seeking any further information on this life. This is probally fair but does it not indicate that the article should be The shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes rather then Jean Charles de Menezes?--JK the unwise 15:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Not really. It's the shooting that makes the poor man notable, therefore in an encyclopaedic sense, an article on him is an article on his shooting. If you wanted to look up information on the shooting (as I'm sure a lot of people has been doing), Jean Charles de Menezes is what you'd be fairly expected to look under. (Oh, and please sign edits to talk pages: type four tildes.) Robin Johnson 15:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Woops forgot to sign. The title Jean Charles de Menezes indicates to me that it should be mostly about the named person. However, most of the information on the page isn't about the Jean its about police proceedures, public reaction, police investigations etc. This page could become a re-direct so it would retain ease of locating. --JK the unwise 15:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Most pages about victims of murders and other killings are headed using the name of the victim, but are primarily about their killing, since most of them were fairly non-notable individuals before they were killed. No reason this should be different. It's the most logical title. It should definitely be kept at this heading. -- Necrothesp 15:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I had the same thought as JK the other night. JCdM's name can be redirected to the new article (it would be by default on using "move"); this article is clearly more about events happening after the death of JCdM than it is about the life of 27 years beforehand. The article is already very large and will continue to grow. The 'notability' argument for changing naming is a trivial and academic one; the more salient argument is that, if the article eventually needs to be subdivided, it would be logically divided into an article each (possibly a Series) for Shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, Investigation of Menezes shooting, Controversy over Menezes shooting, etc. Once this is done, the remaining actual biographical details for JCdM are non-notable and would not warrant their own article under Jean Charles de Menezes, at which point the name ought be redirected to the article on the event. Another possibility is to split the articles, condense the subarticles, and integrate them into a smaller bio and summary article for JCdM. More work, of course.

Terri Schiavo is an obvious example of a similar situation, although I would advocate that this article absolutely not follow that example; thousands of man-hours of work have been spent on that article and it's still way too big. I think we can do better. -Kwh 15:44, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Think about it this way: People searching for information about Charles de Menezes are most likely interested about the shooting. And if not, it should be quite interesting for them to know that he was killed. Unless there is another prominent person with the same name. Take Amadou Diallo, should we have an article with his biograpy, and another about him being shot? No. It is the particularly bizarre circumstances of his death that is interesting. --Ezeu 16:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Other people notable primarily (or even exclusively) for their deaths include James Bulger, William of Norwich, James Miller (filmmaker), Jack Hensley, Nick Berg, Muhammad al-Durrah, Kenneth Bigley, Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln, Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, Kim Sun-il, Rachel Corrie, Fabrizio Quattrocchi, and arguably even Jesus of Nazareth. All these have articles based on the person's name. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 16:44, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Hey, ol' Franz got his own Assassination in Sarajevo article! And I thought I remembered reading a Crucifixion of Jesus article, but there isn't one -- on the other hand, he gets Resurrection of Jesus, which presumably is, shall we say, a one time exception. --Dhartung | Talk 04:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I think in all articles on Wikipedia we should concentrate on what was notable about a person, rather than filling the articles with bumf about their lives (this is not to say the other stuff in their lives was not important -- only that it is not important within the narrow scope of an encyclopaedia article). This is particularly so because anything more would not really be verifiable. A short biography is valuable but anything more would just be padding. Of course, the coverage of the shooting ought to be concise too. Once the IPCC report is out in the open, we should probably have the facts of the shooting and a short section on the police cover-up, and the early eyewitness reports/confusion. If the latter section became unwieldy, maybe that could be broken out. Grace Note 03:13, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

We have an official policy which covers this: Wikipedia is not a memorial, nor an indiscriminate collection of information -- which is what a fuller biography of Sr. Menezes would be. It's quite simple; just because the article exists under his name doesn't mean that people are interested in reading about his no doubt simple, bucolic, and suitably nostalgic family life. Nice person, friend to all, loved dogs and cats equally, fixed someone's bicycle tire once. If we allow ourselves to throw the notability guideline out the window, that's what this article will become. By the same token, if we take the article about his death elsewhere, we invite this article to become un-notable and nothing but a place-holder for the other article. --Dhartung | Talk 04:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Justice4Jean

It unfortunately appears that the Justice4Jean campaign is being run by people with ulterior motives. Asad Rehman the group's spokesman is George Galloway’s political assistant and, according to an investigation by Michael Crick other leading members of the campaign are prominent members of the Stop the War Coalition and other political bodies opposed to the Iraq war. It's unfortunate that the the family of Menezes are being used for political purposes by these people. Jooler 21:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

And the relevance of your thoughts to the article would be .... ? --Dhartung | Talk 21:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

My thoughts? I am free to express them if I choose to do so on the talk page. They need no direct relevance - this is not the article. Hovever - they do have relevance and the relevance is - that at the moment - no mention is made of the Justice4Jean campaign - however I suspect that it probably should be included - and the above information is pertinent to that. Do you have a problem with that? Jooler 22:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines states, Talk pages are not for general chatter; please keep discussions on talk pages on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Talk pages are also not strictly a forum to argue different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how different points of view should be included in the article so that the end result is neutral. Please keep this in mind; the Wikipedia Talkspace is not a categorized current events board. --Dhartung | Talk 23:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

"They are a forum to discuss how different points of view should be included in the article" - Members of Justice4Jean have been speaking to the media and calling for the resignation of Ian Blair, but they have a separate political agenga. Do you think this is relevant to the article? - There was no argument until you decided to stick your oar in. Do you have a problem these matters being raised in the article or not? Jooler 09:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

You're trying to start a fight, aren't you? You post a rambling POV screed about the group with no mention of editing the article, and you're accusing me of having a "problem". (It was only after I cited policy that you decided to bring up editing the article.) Please stand down. If you believe a mention of the group is justified, please add it, but keep your opinion of its organizers out of the article. I have not argued a single point, pro or con, regarding the inclusion of the group, or its "agenga" (what is that, some game where you add opinions until the thing topples over?). Your implication of an argument is unjustified. --Dhartung | Talk 23:18, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Exactly you have not argued a single point regarding the relevance of mentioning this group. Which means you have not made any effort to "discuss how different points of view should be included in the article" regarding this matter. All you have done it stick your oar in trying to belittle the relevance of my comment for no good reason. Furthermore you are incorrect when you say "It was only after I cited policy that you decided to bring up editing the article" - because prior to that I said "no mention is made of the Justice4Jean campaign - however I suspect that it probably should be included" - I made a point about a campaign which is intrisically linked with the article, there is no reference to Justice4Jean (aka Jean Charles de Menezes Family Campaign), but there should be! It is a gross mistake to leave reference to this group out! The leading members of the Justice4Jean campaign (aka Jean Charles de Menezes Family Campaign) have made prominent statements in the media calling for the resignation of Ian Blair and they wrote the statement that was read out by Jean Charles de Menezes's cousin at a recent press conference. But, they are not primarily interested the welfare of the family, they are using the death as a political football, to beat over the head of the Government. You say - "keep your opinion of its organizers out of the article", but as I have mentioned right at the beginning this is not my viewpoint - this is the result of an invesitigation by the respected journalist Michael Crick. Yasmin Khan and Asad Rehman are two of the leading members of the campaign (I've forgotten the name of the third). They also responsible for making false statements to the media about the compensation offered to the family see http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=IG1916741A&news_headline=shot_brazilians_family_offered_us$1million and then see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4169558.stm - these individuals have a history of campaigning against this current government on a number of issues but most prominently as leading members of the Stop the War Coalition.

Do you think this information should be in the article? I do, and I have provided the most frequent editors of this article with relevant information by leaving a message in the talk page. But you ignorantly chose to ignore the fundamental facts of the matter and take it as a non sequitur and called it "my thoughts" - you also focus on a typo (agenga/agenda) - for no reason than to provoke and argument. Jooler 06:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

My, you're an excitable sort. --Dhartung | Talk 17:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

That is an ad hominem attack. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:49, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Jooler: I ended up editing in the facts that you mentioned since they were made topical by someone else's mention of the August 22nd protest by Justice4Jean. However, even though I spent the time to write it, I'm not sure if it deems inclusion. The primary statement in favor of including J4J is that it represents Menezes' two cousins in the UK and claims to represent the rest of the family. The primary statement against is that it does indeed seem to go back to Galloway and Socialists/RESPECT. Nearly all mentions of the other two police incidents go back to Socialist sources. It's questionable whether Wikipedia should further the agitprop if the group is doing nothing particularly significant to the case but stirring up politics (q.v. some pictures of protestors calling for Tony Blair's resignation, when the PM has little to nothing to do with the conduct of Met officers). -Kwh 03:57, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Kwh, I think it is cool to add some information about the J4J campaing mentioned by Jooler. In particular the bits about "members of the campaign being prominent members of the other causes". However, I am in favour that Jooler's or anyone else's feelings or opinions should be left out. As for attacks on Jooler, get a grip people.... --Pinnecco 16:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Bias

I would certainly hope that there would be no bias in this article. Unfortunately, as this is probably a major event, any bias present now will probably increase with the passage of time, and history will rewrite itself. In reporting any historical event, there are nearly always two viewpoints. Both viewpoints should be clearly and fairly put. Leistung 18:28, 21 August 2005

I've tidied up where the tag is since whoever added it doesn't seem to care about neatness, in addition to that they haven't added anything to Talk. I personally don't believe it's biased. Any strong POVs have and are being reverted as they've come up. The person who added the tag needs to add something here otherwise it may well be removed again fairly quickly--Sully 20:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

i agree. i consider a bias tag w/o immediate matching discussion on the talk page to be mere vandalism. i'm not an editor of this article, but i support removing the bias tag whenever it's added without sufficient follow-up by the user who added it. SaltyPig 20:56, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

The bias tag was added by a user with the IP 213.129.64.4. The tag says "Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page". 213.129.64.4 has not motivated his/her reasons for tagging the article, hence I have removed the tag. - Ezeu 00:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Possible corporate manslaughter

I don't think this merits inclusion. Consider the source (The Sun) and the lack of any new attributable information. This is akin to a National Enquirer article (for us Yanks) stating that George Bush may be impeached, arrested, tried for war crimes in the Hague, and executed. It's tabloid. Let me know your thoughts. -Kwh 04:45, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Possible corporate manslaughter charges

It was reported http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005380337,00.html that the Met Commissioner Sir Ian Blair and top officers may be charged with corporate manslaughter.

It's too poorly sourced for inclusion, IMO. But boy, the other stuff in that article (I admit I'm not keeping up daily anymore) -- total yob operation top to bottom. --Dhartung | Talk 05:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I suspect that charges may be brought against one or more officers, but nothing will happen until the conclusion of the IPCC report. Anthing else is pure speculation - and The Sun knows it. Jooler 06:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Introduction

I object to this formulation in the intro

Mistaken for one of the suspects in the previous day's failed attacks, Menezes was shot and killed by unnamed Metropolitan Police officers in plainclothes at Stockwell tube station on the London Underground

That is what the police claim. However, the only fact known for sure is that he was gunned down by police not why they made this error.

Consider for instance the formulation in the portuguese wikipedia

Jean Charles de Menezes (7 de janeiro de 1978–22 de julho de 2005, Londres) foi um imigrante brasileiro morto no metrô de Londres, a tiros, por forças especiais da polícia britânica.

I suggest that "Mistaken for one of the suspects in the previous day's failed attacks" be removed and placed after, possibly with the addition "Police claim he was mistaken..."

--CSTAR 16:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you're overinterpreting "mistaken" as meaning some insight into the thinking of the cops, or "suspect" as meaning a particular individual. It seems clear that police shot him because they thought he was wearing a bomb, in the simplest sense, but more broadly because they thought he was connected to those attacks -- which this wording conveniently refers to immediately, rather than requiring a separate sentence. We know it was a mistake, so that word is proper; making the wording "claim he was mistaken" only introduces (to my eyes) doubt that they even had a good reason in mind when they shot him, i.e. that it was premeditated murder for some unknown reason. --Dhartung | Talk 17:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I suspect his killing was a mistake (e.g., not premeditated murder) but even so, I do not now believe, given all the twists and turns this story has taken (including police misinformation), that we can say why the mistake occurred. Moreover, given the discrepancies in emphasis in the english WP with the portuguese or french WP regarding this event, at least in the first sentences, I think there is some merit to the claim of bias.--CSTAR 17:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

You're going to have to substantiate much more concretely your "claim of bias". Toward whom? In what way? Do you think the English version is too harsh on the cops, or too easy? What alternate wording do you propose, which contains substantially equivalent information? Just because it's worded differently at pt and fr isn't enough. --Dhartung | Talk 18:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the present wording is better. No-one that I am aware of has disputed that the police on the scene thought they were dealing with the would-be suicide bomber who had been connected to the flats out of which de Menezes came. David | Talk 18:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Re:You're going to have to substantiate much more concretely your "claim of bias This is a pretty subjective hurdle. much more concretely? how about just more concretely?

• Toward whom. I thought this was obvious. Towards the police and its account of events.
• In what way? In giving their account uncritically or preceding the actual fact.

Just because it's worded differently at pt and fr isn't enough. That's not what I said. I said my claim of bias had merit (e.g., should not be dismissed outright) and as an example I used the pt and fr articles.

Re No-one that I am aware of has disputed that the police on the scene thought they were dealing with the would-be suicide bomber

That's not clear. For example, bystanders were stunned, Some poor guy being gunned down.

Note that I'm not suggesting that the police be incriminiated. I'm pointing out that there is a bias in your phrasing. --CSTAR 19:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Even de Menezes's family don't dispute that the one who pulled the trigger did so because he thought de Menezes might be a suicide bomber. Why else would he have done it? — ciphergoth 20:29, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I'm baffled, CSTAR, since I do not see the bias "towards the police" in saying that they were mistaken. By my reading it is a simple statement of fact. They were mistaken; they made a mistake. This isn't an apology, it's an indictment. Rest assured that I, for one, think this was a tremendous miscarriage of justice and should be punished severely; careers should end, and procedcures must be changed. Does that assure you of my point of view, when I say that I do not see the bias that you do? The "actual fact" that will ahve to come out is why they were mistaken how they came to be mistaken, and who ordered them to act on this mistaken information. But I don't see that the fact that they were mistaken is in any sort of dispute. Adding weasel words would make it seem to be in dispute, which by my reading again, would actually cast doubt on the question of whether they were mistaken -- i.e. open up the possibility that they were correct. Do you see that? (I'm worried about the way you're parsing what I'm saying; are you a native English speaker?) --Dhartung | Talk 04:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Huh? are you a native English speaker? That question seems irrelevant. But anyway to explain what I mean consider the following scenario (all th elements of which are hypothetical, so please don't interpret these remarks as my proposing that a conspiracy actually took place): Someone in the police, under enormous pressure to produce a tangible result in the hunt for the bombers, issues a shoot to kill order to the cops on the scene, even though he/she is fully aware that there is hardly any reason to believe the suspect (de Menezes) is a terrorist. That killing would not have been a mistake, at least not in the way currently stated in the article:

Mistaken for one of the suspects in the previous day's failed attacks

In my view, killing in those circumstances would have been murder. Now please, I am not suggesting that this is actually what happened, but at this point it cannot be ruled out, I don't think. Now if you can definitely rule this out, then fine, I retract my statement. --CSTAR 04:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

If someone is charged with murder then it will be murder. If someone is charged with manslaughter then it will be manslaughter. Perhaps an officer's gun accidentally went off? How many weapons were dischaged? Was an officer too tense and squeeze the trigger of his weapon too tightly? The precise details regarding the actions of the officer (or officers) that killed Menezes are not in the public domain, so we will not know the full details until the IPCC and the coronor have published their reports. What is in the public domain is that the reason that Menezes was followed was because he was mistaken for Osman Hussain. Jooler 06:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

My two cents... you must accept as fact for the moment the police implication that JCdM was mistaken for one of the bombers/the killing was mistaken unless there is a completing theory from equally or more credible sources. Right now the IPCC theory also concurs that the police were mistaken about M's identity (no matter how foolish their mistake was). Nobody semi-credible (such as an anonymous police source) is suggesting for instance that M was killed because he knew top secret information about the Downing Street Minutes and the War in Iraq.

There's no particular reason to add "X claims" or similar attribution to a fact which is not credibly disputed. For instance, we can say "The Earth revolves around the Sun" instead of "Scientist Stephen Hawking claims the Earth revolves around the Sun" because there is nobody credible stating that the Earth does not revolve around the Sun.

Removing 'mistaken' or adding weasel words would give the impression that the motivation of the police is a matter in dispute or a matter of conjecture. It's not disputed by any equally credible source, and it's not a matter of conjecture since the police have stated this was their motivation. If it all turns out to be a lie, then the article would change considerably.

I think the wording is close to ideal as is; mistaken for a suspect, he was shot by police. He was not accidentally shot, it was wilful based on the mistaken suspicion. The wording is simplified for style, but the meaning is that "he was mistaken for a suspect by police, and for this reason he was shot by police." I think that is the responsible truth as far as it is known at this time. -Kwh 11:25, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I've removed "He was not given an opportunity to surrender; he was instead summarily shot numerous times in the head at point blank range." added by 68.144.55.125 to the Intro since it seems blatently non-NPOV, I've also reverted the comment on clothing since I feel it doesn't merit mentioning in the introduction. --Sully 20:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

If we can find some evidence that the CO19 officers who shot him were told that he was a suspect, that would be an appropriate thing to say.

The reason he was followed is that he was mistaken for one of the bombers. This led to him being shot. I see no point in suggesting that there might have been any other motive. Jooler

We don't know why he was followed, and we certainly don't know why he was shot. Wikipedia should deal with fact, not speculation.

Anonymous user, please sign your posts with at least ~~~~ so that your words can be distinguished from those of others... The original wording of the introduction stated "Mistaken for one of the suspects in the previous day's failed attacks, Menezes was shot and killed by unnamed Metropolitan Police officers in plainclothes at Stockwell tube station on the London Underground." This does not make supposition of what the actual shooting officers believed, but sticks to the facts. I think that this reads well and doesn't need changing.

Also, please stop removing the image because you believe it is copyvio. The original uploader of the image has stated what they believe to be the copyright status on the image page. If you want to challenge this, follow the procedures at WP:CP. Continuing to remove it is needlessly contentious and would be considered vandalism. Kwh 00:28, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, wouldn't be considered vandalism but would be considered edit warring and would call for dispute resolution. -Kwh 00:39, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Saying that he was "mistaken for one of the suspects in the previous day's failed attacks" right before saying that he "was shot and killed by unnamed Metropolitan Police officers in plainclothes at Stockwell tube station on the London Underground" implies that the two are related. [User:Jddd|Unsigned by Jddd]

Jddd - first off, I have asked for a Third opinion. Secondly, they are indisputably 'related'. As I stated in another conversation, nobody is claiming that JCdM was killed because he knew top-secret information about the Downing Street Minutes and the Iraq War. Unless there is someone semi-credible saying that there is another hypothesis, that is the best and most responsible thing to say in terms of an introduction to the reader.

And finally, we welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but you have apparently arrived as an anonymous user and created an account to edit only this point on this article. Unless you have content to add (not delete), the best way to contribute would be to read some of the past discussion on this page and consider it before continuing to commit the same removals multiple times. Your points with regard to factuality as well as the image copyright have already been covered. -Kwh 00:57, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

You're implying the two arn't related? Why would that be? Are you suggesting the police shot him for any other reason? Jooler 00:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm saying the two aren't obviously related. I'm not suggesting anything, I'm sticking to the facts, not making suggestions. -anon

"police claimed they shot a suicide bomer" is not sticking to the facts. What is a fact is that he emerged from a building under surveillence and was followed because mistaken for a potential bomber. I can see no logic in denying this. Jooler 01:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

""Menezes was shot and killed by unnamed Metropolitan Police officers at Stockwell tube station on the London Underground after a police surveilance team reported that he potentially matched the description of two suspects in the previous day's attempted bombing attack." That is sticking to the facts. Saying that he was followed for a particular reason is not a fact, and certainly saying that he was shot for a particular reason isn't - the people who shot him weren't even the people that were following him.

Saying that he was ordered to be shot because he was a suspected suicide bomber might be OK, if of course that were reported to be the case. But the police are denying that this is true. The cops that shot the guy aren't even named, and their version of the story hasn't been released. All we know at this point was that the guy was being followed in connection with the previous day's bombing, that he was reported as maybe fitting the description of one of the bombers, and that he was shot in the head a bunch of times by police officers other than the ones following him. We don't know why he was shot, we don't even know what the people who shot him were told. They obviously didn't believe that he was a suspect due to direct evidence, there is no evidence that they even saw the guy's face. They might have been told that he was a suspect, they might have been told that he was definitely the guy, they might have just been told to shoot him, we don't know, because none of this has been reported, that's all speculation.

Jddd, have you considered this:

Surveillance officers wrongly believed he could have been Hussain Osman, one of the prime suspects, or another terrorist suspect.

By 10am that morning, elite firearms officers were provided with what they describe as "positive identification" and shot De Menezes eight times in the head and upper body.This

…

A document describes CCTV footage, which shows Mr de Menezes entered Stockwell station at a "normal walking pace" and descended slowly on an escalator.

The document said: "At some point near the bottom he is seen to run across the concourse and enter the carriage before sitting in an available seat.

"Almost simultaneously armed officers were provided with positive identification."

This is from the ITV leaked IPCC documents, from one of the first reports on the subject. Is this the evidence you are looking for? We know it all now to be a horrible mistake, but at the time someone apparently provided (or gave the impression that they were providing) "positive identification" that he was Osman or the other suspect, and on that basis he was engaged as a suicide bomber (meaning "shoot-to-kill-to-protect"). -Kwh 04:07, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

When those documents become public maybe we'll be able to more clearly say what happened, but this article doesn't make it clear. Who gave the "positive identification"? What was it "positive identification" of? Two words aren't going to cut it, I'm afraid. We don't know it to be a horrible mistake, at least any more than any intentional shooting is a horrible mistake. It doesn't add up. Even if the officers did think he was Osman, that still doesn't explain why they shot him.

I'm sorry, but that's not a credible position to me. Your objection seems to be more epistemological and argumentative than against any stated inaccuracy or bias. I myself objected to stating that the details of the IPCC leak were factual initially (I advocated for attributing them as allegations) but the consensus reality among the media, commentators, and article editors is that the leak details are the most credible thing outstanding at the moment - the original police version of events is discredited and there is no other competing theory. If we find out tomorrow that it is confirmed that JCdM was a green space alien from Mars working for the Illuminati, then the entire article can be changed to reflect that fact, but we don't have to cease adding useful information or excessively qualify our wording just for that outside possibility. -Kwh 16:44, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I completely disagree with this. We shouldn't post guesses as facts, even if they are the best guess we have at the moment.

I think at this point you're either trolling or just impossibly unreasonable (if there is a difference). Take a look around Wikipedia, or indeed any library and you will find that the vast majority of human knowledge is guesses (or hypotheses which cannot be proven a priori, but which indeed stand up to empirical testing and are usually stated as facts or laws. Don't know if that means anything to you, but for my part I'm just going to ignore you. Moving on. -Kwh 01:53, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Changes by anon

After the above exchange someone made sevaral changes including removal of an earlier photograph. Why was the photograph removed? I also never suggested the use of allegedly as is now the case in the article. My suggestion is this:

Jean Charles de Menezes (7 January 1978 – 22 July 2005) was a Brazilian electrician living in Tulse Hill in south London, England who was shot and killed by plainclothes Metropolitan Police officers in at Stockwell tube station on the London Underground. Menezes had apparently been mistaken for one of the suspects in the previous day's failed attacks...

but it seems most people were happy with the wording (prior to the latest edit) --CSTAR 17:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted this back, these edits have added nothing except weasel words to the article. But the above wording could be acceptable, "alledgedly" implies some other motive for the killing whereas "apparently" might be acceptable given they thought he was involved with the bombings. Is there a real reason to change it though?--Sully 17:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Sure, the story that he was a suspect in the bombings makes absolutely no sense, and it is not verifiable that the police thought he was, so such a "fact" has no place in Wikipedia.

It may be a working version. However, don't say "London, England" - should be United Kingdom. I also query the use of 'plainclothes' in the intro, as it is an extraneous detail. The second sentence should not say "apparently" which means "appeared to be" - this invites the comment "appeared to whom to be?". Best to attribute the confusion to the relevant people: the police. David | Talk 23:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to see where it is said that the officers who shot Menezes were told or believed anything. According to the article the surveillance officers were told that he "potentially matched the description of two of the previous day's suspects", but they were also told that he was to be "taken alive", and they weren't the ones that shot him anyway.

I've made a 4th revert against anon edit against the current consensus - page protection requested! Jooler 00:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

You still haven't stated what is wrong with my version which sticks to the facts.

Wikipedia is a cooperative enterprise. Please cooperate. The current version (before you changed it) was the result of a consensus. Jooler 00:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

So start cooperating. The current version after I changed it is also the result of a consensus. - anon

Your version ("police claimed they shot a suicide bomber") - was NOT sticking to the facts) - and was not the result of a consensus. Jooler 00:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

That's not the version I'm talking about, I'm talking about the current version: "Menezes was shot and killed by unnamed Metropolitan Police officers at Stockwell tube station on the London Underground after a police surveilance team reported that he potentially matched the description of two suspects in the previous day's attempted bombing attack." That sticks to the facts, and is a consensus between the two points of view. Unsigned by Jddd

Anonymous user - just a small point: if you say something is a consensus and more than one person doesn't agree with you - it's not consensus. Also, please sign your talk page entries with ~~~~ so they can be distinguished from the entries of others. -Kwh 01:11, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking of the term "compromise", not consensus. You're right though, consensus is when everyone is in agreement. So I don't see how either version is a consensus, because we don't all agree on any version right now. Unsigned by Jddd

Understood, but it also behooves us to work toward consensus. Not everyone has to agree if one person can be convinced (through discussion) to put aside their objection. Wikipedia is not a democracy and it certainly isn't a democracy that requires a unanimous vote! The Three revert rule exists because it is pointless to continue reverting back and forth until someone flinches. -Kwh 01:25, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I've read that three revert rule and it doesn't seem to apply to what I was doing because I was changing the sentence to different things to try to come to a compromise solution. Maybe you should be talking to Jooler about the reverting thing.

Consider the forth and fifth paragraph here: WP:EW -Kwh 04:32, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Your current version is almost okay as far as I'm concerned, but "potentially matched the description of two suspects" - doesn't make sense to me. Do we have information that says they said "it could be A or it could be B"? AFAIK he was mistaken for Osman Hussain. Jooler 01:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I took "potentially matched the description of two suspects" directly from the Wikipedia article below (see "Pursuit and shooting"). I took it to mean that they reported he might have matched either one of two suspects, which makes sense except for the part where they shoot him.

Here is the quote from the Guardian article: "But the report shows that there was a failure in the surveillance operation and officers wrongly believed Mr de Menezes could have been one of two suspects." http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1550565,00.html

"officers wrongly believed..." - in otherwords "he was mistaken for..." Jooler 01:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

wrongly believe he "could have been" is much different from mistaken for, and those weren't the officers that shot him anyway.

We're never going to know exactly what anyone was thinking. At best, any statement they make will be calculated to uphold the idea of their own innocence. The best we can do is third-hand reports, and I don't see where Wikipedia is any different from the major news media in describing this. Also, please sign edits to Talk pages. It's unnerving talking to a pile of words. --Dhartung | Talk 17:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

We should never report what someone was thinking as a fact.

We are not. This is going in circles. --Dhartung | Talk 00:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I've changed the wording. Since you think it is very important that we do not report what "someone was thinking" as a fact, I have removed the text saying a police surveilance team reported that he could have been one of two suspects since the "could" implies we know what they were thinking as much as your concerns over what the shooting officers were thinking. What is fact is that he left the address which was the same block as the one under surveillance. I anticipate the criticism that this seems to make him sound guilty as hell; well, I preferred the original text to either this one or the one I'm changing it from. --Dhartung | Talk 04:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Dhartung: sorry, I stepped on your edit because I remembered it differently, but then I did a google search and found that the house was under surveillance because of Osman Hussain's gym membership card (they say it was registered to him and another person), and was also of interest because of the car linked to the suspect terrorist training camp. Your edit was definitely a good idea, but I don't see why such qualification is needed for the lede graf, which is supposed to sum it up for the reader who doesn't want to get into all the details. Also, it's been stated that the lede graf of most articles is probably what will be used for the article in Wikipedia 1.0, so it should be a brief, simple summary, answer the five W's, etc. -Kwh 05:14, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

(How many colons does it take to indent a Talk paragraph? Sounds like a riddle.) As I stated I really do prefer the simple version. I was trying to come up with a simple version that involved use only of known facts as opposed to surmised or extrapolated facts. But I'm not going to do that for one person unreasonably objecting (who won't even bother to sign edits, which I take as discourtesy). That person has proposed a different wording but hasn't offered any changes from that wording, so I think the ball's in their court. --Dhartung | Talk 07:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Brazil police shootings

I seem to have accidentally removed this after I posted it the other day:

I don't agree with the inclusion of the below. It's bad POV in the article from which it was quoted and it's bad POV here. It's really a non-sequitur: "Brazilians noted that such killings are more typical of Brazil than the UK... but UK commentators noticed that there were a bunch of police killings in Brazil!" I can't even figure out what the commentator was trying to prove by attacking this straw man; Can Brazilians not protest a police killing because they see police killings every day? All in all I don't think criticism of the criticism merits inclusion. We already have multiple points of view on the event itself. Other thoughts?-Kwh 03:57, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

The level of Brazilian protestation raised criticism with some British commentators who noted that extra-judicial executions by the police in Brazil are far from rare. An Amnesty International report published in 2004 pointed out that official figures show that in 2003 police shot dead 915 people in São Paulo alone, while 1,195 were killed by police in Rio de Janiero. Amnesty also reported that the such deaths were rarely investigated.[24]

The level of extra-judicial killings in Brazil has been prominently mentioned in the British press, and directly related to this story, in several ways. Firstly, the irony of it, secondly the fact that Brazil have sent two investigators over to the UK, while in Brazil virtually nothing is done to investigate the extra-judicial killings, thirdly that the critism levelled at the British police is hypocritical. Some people have argued that the level of protestation in Brazil is meant to distract attention away from Brazil and claim that the British police are just as bad as the Brazil's - this claim is mentioned in the article already i.e. (some Brazilian commentators noted that incidents such as Menezes' killing are more typical of a developing country such as Brazil than a developed nation like the UK). Finally Amnesty Internationl themselves specifically drew attention to this issue as a consequence of the Brazilian protestation at the death of Menezes. Jooler 06:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Right, that's the same way I heard it, and it just seems like a "I'm rubber and you're glue" argument proffered by Gethin Chamberlain, the Scotsman article author. "Irony" and "hypocrisy" are definitely POV flags. Also, it still doesn't make sense; how are the illicit acts of Brazilian police incongruent with massive criticism by the Brazilian public? Also, Amnesty did not draw attention to it in response to the shooting or criticism, it was their standard report on violence in Brazil which was quoted by other critics. As noted, the report for 2003 statistics is quoted.

I also don't find evidence of prominent mention in the British press via web search. There are several reports from July 26; of which the Scotsman author brings this up as apparent rebuttal to the statement of Celso Amorim that the Brazilian government is "shocked and perplexed" at the shooting. The other mentions from July 26 mention it as background info. It is then brought up again on August 23, and juxtaposed with the more recent visits by Brazilian police officials. These pieces also are editorial and unattributed (e.g. The Sun).

You may have better perspective if you happen to be in the UK, but I only find that the "critics" statement would make sense if juxtaposed with the response of the Brazilian government, as opposed to the reaction of the public, and possibly sourced directly to the Scotsman author since he didn't quote anyone else. The Amnesty numbers make sense as a footnote adding detail to the "3rd world nation" claim. But putting them together specifically as they are now only seems to reproduce the nonsense POV put forth by the Scotsman author.

It also still boggles my mind that anyone can believe that you must defend shootings by police in one country before you can criticize a pointless one in another, or else be branded a hypocrite. But that's my POV. -Kwh 13:57, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

• "I also don't find evidence of prominent mention in the British press"
  • I listen to the Today programme every morning and the 6 o'clock news every evening on BBC Radio 4 and one or other of those had a piece about it, including an interview with a member of Amnesty who was highlighting the issue (and Amnesty's report from last year) in light of the death of Menezes. BBC Newsnight also covered the story and showed some video that caught members of the Brazilian police carrying out an execution on a petty thief.
  • The story was covered by Reuters -[25]
  • By The Daily Telegraph - [26]
  • By The Sun - [27]
  • By The Scotsman - [28]
  • By The Times - [29]
  • and probably more.
• So you may not agree with the view - but it is entirely correct to point out that - ".. some British commentators .. noted that extra-judicial executions by the police in Brazil are far from rare" which is what the paragraph says. Jooler 19:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Quote me properly, I said I did not find evidence of prominent mention via web search. I also said you probably have better perspective if you are in the UK; I don't listen to BBC television or radio programs.

You cited virtually the same things I found via web search, a few reports from July 26 and a few from August 22-23. The Scotsman article is not attributing anything to commentators, i.e. "Brazilian outrage at the shooting will… be regarded with some scepticism by human rights groups…". That speaks in the future, speculative tense; someone might or should regard this with scepticism.

Per the Reuters source, "Brazil should apply the same zeal in confronting its own violent police … rights groups said on Tuesday (August 23)." That (the reaction of Amnesty and Global Justice) is the criticism that the Scotsman author was presaging, coming almost a month later.

Per the Times source (August 22), "Commentators in Britain may be saying that the Brazilian government is attempting to deflect attention away from its troubles by grand-standing over Mr de Menezes, but if they are, it isn't working. The corruption story is simply too big to go away." This is in an entirely different context of Brazilian internal politics.

It does seem that this (or some part of it) can be attributed to Amnesty:

Tim Cahill, an expert on Brazil with Amnesty International, said the Menezes case was very serious and raised questions about human rights in Britain.

But Brazil should not confine itself to condemning British police or demanding compensation for the victim's family, he said.

"Now the Brazilian government has made clear it wants to guarantee human rights of the family of the killed man, but this also has to be reflected in protection of human rights of all Brazilians, be it those killed in the favelas (slums) of Rio or in London," said Cahill, who is based in the British capital.

"That is what has to be done and not picking and choosing these cases because of the publicity they receive...I don't think they are showing the same approach at home," he added.

I think that what criticism has been put out by various commentators is in a markedly different context than the text of the WP article currently puts it. First, it is of interest in terms of the Brazilian government statements and Brazilian government and police policy, not in terms of "the reaction of the Brazilian public", which is at the head of the paragraph where the rebuttal appears, and also in terms of the subject of the section.

Thanks for your feedback, though. I think there is some additional interesting information that could be included, and I think this tells me how the article needs to be edited to fix the problem. The criticism needs to be attributed to Amnesty, needs to follow the reaction of Amorim two paras earlier, and the whole lot might be put into another subsection on Politics, rather than where it is ("Discovery of innocence and public reaction"). Thanks again, Kwh 05:23, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Yasmin Khan

Why did you remove the references to Yasmin Khan?! 09:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

BTW the name of the ris person involved in the Justice4Jean campaign is Alistair Alexander (he runs the website) and is a press officer for the Stop the War coalition. Jooler 23:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I did explain the edit. I don't think this person bears mention just because they were mentioned in a news article. The connection from Rehman to Galloway is clearly what makes the political angle; yes, Khan is connected to other protest organizations but I'm sure if you went through the membership of J4J you might find Mildred Tiddlesworth, President of Scottish Veterinarians Against the War in Iraq, but that doesn't mean that organization or person makes it more political.

This also unbalances criticism because there is a "rebuttal" from`Galloway's office, but no rebuttal to the other; this is a more minor concern because it's not our job to balance reality, but we're also not engaging in investigative journalism to prove a point. The reader can decide if the involvement of Rehman makes it political. If they don't understand what that means, they can go to the cite link and read the criticism in context, where they'll also hear about Rehman. Reproducing every word from every source just makes a long, boring article. (and we're getting there; this article needs to be edited down or split up.) -Kwh 04:04, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I do not accept this arugment. Khan is not just another member of this organzation. Alex Pereira was flanked by Rehman and Khan at a press conference. Khan has made many statements to the press including claiming that the police operation was "a Laurel and Hardy police operation" [30] - she also falsley claimed that the Met had offered $1m dollars compensation [31] Jooler 16:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure this little distraction is very satisfying for you, but most of this information does not belong in the article. Consequently I've broken out a separate article on the organization, whose staff members resumes you may annotate to your heart's content. Maybe there's a secretary who's horribly implicated in the passing out of protest buttons, or something. --Dhartung | Talk 20:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Ignorant action. Jean Charles de Menezes Family Campaign can never be a full article unless it duplicates a vast amount of this article. And what would be the point in that? I do not appreciate your desires to sideline the issues surrounding it, by parking the controversy in another article that will be weakly linked (probably to this article only). Jooler 21:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Jooler, FWIW I thought Dhartung was headed down the right way. I really think you have an axe to grind on this issue, and yes, by assuming Dhartung has an ulterior desire to "sideline" issues by adding another article to Wikipedia, you're not assuming good faith. There's no reason to assume that putting information in another article somehow weakens it, and there would be no problem if it did "weaken" it, unless you have a POV to flog.

If you've got a bone to pick with all these protest groups that are backed by socialists and you want the world to know about it, my recommendation is to go ahead and detail it line and verse in articles on those individuals and groups. Nobody will oppose you there. -Kwh 03:20, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Is the criticism given in the article of the family's campaign actually meaningful or notable? Can they be sourced? Because right now, there doesn't actually seem to be much substantiveness to it. Sure, links to Stop the War (which the article fails to note is very much a mainstream organisation in the UK), whatever. But does that make their protests less credible? Does any political link to the socialists accurately reflect the many people who are angry about all this? Are we recounting a major criticism that is required for a full understanding of the issue here, or are we just repeating a few fringe ad hominems?--Fangz 22:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The death of Jean de Menezes is mentioned on the front page of www.stopthewar.org where it says - "Londoners are now really paying the price of this war, both in the suicide bombings and in this public killing" - Members of the organization are using the issue in their campaign against the Blair government and the Iraq war. The Menezes family are being used by political activists. Is this notable!? Of course! Stop the War Coalition is mainstream in the same way that CND and the Anti-Nazi League are mainstream, the organizers are usually linked to far left groups. As pointed out earlier Yasmin Khan is a campaigner against globalization. See [32] and note that this site states - "Yasmin Khan is a London-based activist who works in Corporate Pirates and other anti-occupation groups.". Note criticism of this involvement in the Telegraph [33] and The Sunday Times editorial [34] and the FT [35]Jooler 22:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

You know, none of this would be the case if the fucking cops hadn't shot the boy. Maybe your problem is with them. --Dhartung | Talk 04:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Well Stop the War would argue that "the cops" shot the 26 years old "boy" because of the Iraq war, and the neo-cons currently running the USA, so maybe your problem is with them? Jooler 06:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

In our own article, we mentioned that the Stop the War march against the Iraq war was the largest mass protest in British history. We mentioned that Galloway was fairly and democratically elected as a MP. This makes them mainstream, whether you like them or not. But this particular section is about the campaign by the family itself. Sure, some groups are going to tackle the killing from their own perspective. At the initial stage, we had far right people arguing that this should lead to stronger controls on immigration. But all the criticism here is about who a small number of people are, not what they are actually saying. To make this criticism meaningful, we need a clear statement direct from Justice4Jean itself adopting a stance that is far left.--Fangz 19:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

CND marches were the biggest of their day, but we are not talking about those people who joined marches, we are talking about political activists who run these organizations. What are you saying? That they have to be wearing their Justice4Jean baseball caps at the time they make an anti-Blair, anti-US, or anti-Capitalist statement for it to be valid to claim that the Justice4Jean campaign is run by far-left political activists? Yes the criticism is about who the people are and most particularly, what their motives are. You are correct. You say "the campaign by the family itself" Is that correct? Their website says "The Jean Charles de Menezes Family Campaign was set up by the family and friends of Jean Charles" - so are to beleive that Alistair Alexander, who runs the website, Yasmin Khan and Asad Rehman were all personal friends of Menezes? Jooler 22:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The issue at hand is not whether or not Justice4Jean et al. are "far left", whatever that may mean to a given reader. The issue is whether the political affiliations of individuals in that campaign are notable and encyclopedic in an article on Jean Charles de Menezes. I created a separate article so that those claims, counterclaims, and broader connections might be fully explored in an article where they are encyclopedic. All that should be in this article is a summary of the organization and its people, and actions they have publicly taken with regard to the investigation. Your sitting here in the Talk page questioning what they say is proof that these are not relevant questions belonging to the article -- this article. Full exploration is entirely possible on Wikipedia, but on an article devoted to the organization. --Dhartung | Talk 04:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Overshadowing the bombings

There should be mention of this one incident overshadowing the bombings themselves. One of the relatives of a person killed by a 7 July bomb made such comments, though I can't recall her name. violet/riga (t) 09:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

It was Dania Gorodi, sister of Mihaela "Michelle" Otto http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/08/23/nfam23.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/08/23/ixhome.html . I also heard her interviewed on Radio 4 Jooler 22:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and Hurricane Katrina has overshadowed this. Unfortunately, the public does not keep its interest up for long. We should never forget this young man who gave his life so that others might live. The truth as to whether police were correct in what they did, and should be applauded, or whether Jean Charles's relatives were right to complain about it should be determined. If this is forgotten about, it will certainly be swept under the carpet. Wallie 16:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Londonisms

I totally disagree that "Britishism" (Londonisms??) should only be used. This article is for the world, and few people understand Britishisms anyway. London people talk in a special way, and use "sorted" in nearly every sentence. I prefer train to tube, for example. Everyone knows what a train is, but a tube is for toothpaste. Encyclopedias should minimize jargon and slang. Wallie 16:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Ironic that you are complaining about Britishisms with a name like Wallie. Why not try making the same complaint (but re:Americanisms) on all the articles that use the term subway for underground railway, or sidewalk for pavement. Then come back here and you'll be sorted. BTW sorted can mean something else entirely unpleasant. Jooler 22:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand "Britishism" as meaning that article contributors should write like they're Dickens characters or something. I don't see anything like that in the article.

If there are media articles quoted, they will most likely be talking about what happened in the carriage on the tube, as opposed to what happened in the subway car, flat vs. apartment, metric units vs. "American Imperial", -ise vs. -ize, etc. The point isn't to put everything in Cockney rhyming slang, just if there's an AmE and BrE equivalent term on something, choose the BrE version. Per Manual of Style, "If possible, as with spelling, use rules appropriate to the cultural and linguistic context. In other words, do not enforce American rules on pages about British topics or British rules on pages about American topics. In regards to pages about other cultures, choose either style, but be consistent." It doesn't mean add "sorted" to every sentence. -Kwh 20:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Similar Incidents

I've reverted the most recent entry referencing the death of an anti-nazi campaigner. Unless I've missing something this doesn't seem the least bit similar and isn't a shooting. Tragic though it may have been this article would turn into a huge list of people who died where the police may have been involved. --Sully 21:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and on that basis I'm in favor of removing the Similar Incidents section altogether. It starts out with the sentence: "The Metropolitan Police have been involved in a number of other incidents in which innocent people have been shot and/or killed", as if to draw an implication that this is nothing new for the Met, but the individual situations don't bear enough similarity to support the implication. Then the section goes further into irrelevance by talking about all police forces in the UK, then the SAS. Why don't we just branch out to the NYPD and LAPD too?

Really, the Waldorf and Stanley cases only bear mention because they have been mentioned briefly in the press coverage on Menezes, but then just mentioning those two doesn't warrant a whole section. I've reproduced the section below for discussion, but I propose removing it altogether to discourage people from adding their own cause célèbre to the list. Comments? -Kwh 00:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I also agree - we just don't need a list of other people who have been shot on this page, not least because there are already pages for such lists (and I think there is a category too, and this page is in that category). I would remove the section. Andreww 07:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree as well. If there is to be any mention of other incidents, it should at the most take the form of one or two sentences in some other section - perhaps something like "There have been some similar incidents where the Met have shot innocent persons whom they believed to be dangerous criminals; the two most notable being Waldorf and Stanley." (That sounds a bit clunky, though.) Anyone want to take the plunge and cut it? --A bit iffy 12:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, further to this, I now think if other incidents are referred to at all, only the Stanley one should be mentioned. The Stanley case is the only one where someone was apparently mistaken for a terrorist (or whatever NPOV term is acceptable), the implication then being that he was mistaken for an IRA gunman. --A bit iffy 13:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Similar incidents

The Metropolitan Police have been involved in a number of other incidents in which innocent people have been shot and/or killed, such as:

• 1983 — Stephen Waldorf, shot and injured whilst driving a mini car. Police were looking for escaped prisoner David Martin, believed Waldorf's girlfriend Sue Stephens was Martin's girlfriend, and on this basis shot Waldorf. Two officers stood trial for attempted murder and attempted wounding but were cleared of all charges; Stephen Waldorf made a full recovery and eventually received £150,000 compensation.
• 1999 — Harry Stanley, 46, from Hackney, east London, who was shot and killed by Metropolitan Police officers who apparently had mistaken a chair-leg being carried in a plastic bag for a firearm.

Other UK police forces have been involved in similar incidents:

• 1988 — the Attorney General announces that eleven RUC officers investigated by the Stalker/Sampson inquiry into an alleged "shoot to kill" policy are not to be prosecuted. International criticism followed.
• 1998 — James Ashley, 39, who was shot and killed by Sussex Police while naked and unarmed during a drugs raid at his flat in St Leonards in East Sussex.

British military have also faced legal consequences in at least one similar incident:

• 1988 — three IRA operatives were shot dead in Gibraltar by SAS soldiers, allegedly under a "shoot to kill" policy intended to prevent them from operating any detonator on their person. The three people killed had no explosives or detonators on them, although a timed car bomb was found later. They had been under surveillance for some time prior to the incident. The European Court of Human Rights held, by majority, that there was an opportunity to stop them at an earlier stage without having to shoot them and accordingly their right to life had been infringed ^[36]

"... under specific orders not to shoot ..."

I have removed this phrase, since I have not been able to find any corroborating evidence either in the article or the talk page. The claim is referred to later in the article. A citation of an unnamed source in a tabloid newspaper may be worth reporting, but is hardly firm evidence of the factual basis for the claim. Besides, even the newspaper article itself raises the possibility that the (alleged) orders may not have reached the officers. Vilcxjo 00:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree, it's a bit "overdramatic"... I very much doubt based on the other information available on the policy that a chief would say "you are ordered not to shoot", as the chief would have to be 100% certain that the suspect was harmless to the officers and public. -Kwh 03:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

They were under "specific orders not to shoot ...". This fact has been widely reported. If it really unfortunate that you would want to remove this. This sort of thing creates "edit wars". I can understand that you feel the shooting was justified, as "the chief would have to be 100% certain that the suspect was harmless to the officers and public". Some others of us are not apologists for those responsible. We just want the facts. It is not over dramatic, in my view. Police Operations of this nature are run very very tight control, and officers are under strict orders, and the plan of action is well rehearsed. You know this and so do I. So why just remove things you don't like, even if they are true. I will put it back, when I have done more research, and have plenty of backup material. Wallie 11:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

The above comment by Wallie was removed by an anon. I have restored it, as I don't believe comments should in general be removed other than by the originating author. BUT ... Wallie, you need to understand the distinction between what you or I might believe to be the case, and established provable fact. On the basis of my removal of this disputed phrase, you conclude that I "feel the shooting was justified" and am an "apologist for those responsible". WRONG! Sorry to disappoint you, but I passionately believe (and have written elsewhere) that this was one of the most scandalous incidents in UK public life in recent times, and represents the gravest of changes in the relationship between the individual and state power. None of that, however, justifies the inclusion in an encyclopaedia article of a serious allegation, without qualification (e.g. "it is reported that," etc.), without conclusive supporting evidence (not just "some unnamed source told our reporter ..."). It has indeed, as you say, been "widely reported". It was also alleged that de Menezes was challenged by the police, ran from them, vaulted the ticket barriers etc. All of which was widely reported, and all of which turned out to be untrue. "We just want the facts." Unless/until this particular allegation has been properly investigated and shown to be true, it should not be in the article introduction at all, and if reported elsewhere in the article should be qualified appropriately. Vilcxjo 21:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

OK. Sorry for mistaking your intentions. It is very very difficult to come up with "facts". The only person who knows the facts is Jean Clarles himself. So are you suggesting that we just have a blank space in this article? Or just the "official" view, which says the killing was entirely justified? I believe we have to trust media sources too, as they are the professionals. This is the great advantage of Wikipedia. It gives many viewpoints, (I think they call this NPOV), and not just the official viewpoint. Wallie 09:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

What? Jean Charles knows the facts about what orders Cressida Dick gave? You are not speaking sense. Since you initially mistook and attacked my statement that it is not logical that the Chief gave specific orders not to shoot, allow me to retort. My meaning is that a Chief would not send out heavily armed officers with loaded weapons with orders not to shoot. It defies logic. Not to mention the plain fact that a "shoot-to-kill-to-protect" policy had been adopted by the Met for counter-terrorism operations after July 7, and was publicly announced on July 15 2005. The officers clearly had operational instructions on when they were authorized to shoot; the specifics of the operation and whether they followed those instructions correctly will hopefully be determined by the IPCC.

With regards to the contentious edit: "According to a 'senior police source', the officer in charge of Gold Command Commander Cressida Dick gave clear and specific orders that Mr Menezes was to be 'taken alive'." The source given does not quote the words 'taken alive', nor 'clear and specific orders' to Cressida Dick, nor even to the senior police source. 'taken alive' is an unquoted paraphrase in the article subtitle. What it does say is "Commander Dick told the surveillance team the man should be detained as soon as possible - and before he got inside the station.", directly quoted from the anonymous source. Compare: "According to a "senior police source", Police Commander Cressida Dick told the surveillance team that the man was to be "detained as soon as possible", before entering the station." That is as accurate as you can get within fair use standards, and NPOV.

Further, I resent the implication that you think I am an "apologist" or that I "feel the shooting is justified". My personal thoughts echo and amplify those of Vilcxjo. If you honestly couldn't tell, then I must know what I am doing. I am editing an encyclopedia, not expressing my personal thoughts. The question as to whether the shooting is justified is one to be decided by the reader, based on the facts presented. That's facts, not a melange of multiple points of view or misquotes. If you think that NPOV is defined as "a whole bunch of viewpoints", you are either woefully misinformed. or trolling. If you're trolling, congrats; I've bitten. Hope your mother's proud.

If not, I insist that you live up to your original contention from October 1, when you claimed "I will put it back, when I have done more research, and have plenty of backup material." Also, read very carefully on NPOV. -Kwh 02:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

What is the neutral point of view? (This text comes from your NPOV article.

What we mean isn't obvious, and is easily misunderstood. There are many other valid interpretations of "unbiased" and "neutral". The notion of "unbiased writing" that informs Wikipedia's policy is "presenting conflicting views without asserting them". This needs further clarification, as follows. First, and most importantly, consider what it means to say that unbiased writing presents conflicting views without asserting them. Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view; it does not assert the most popular view is correct after presenting all views; it does not assert that some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Presenting all points of view says, more or less, that p-ists believe that p, and q-ists believe that q, and that's where the debate stands at present. Ideally, presenting all points of view also gives a great deal of background on who believes that p and q and why, and which view is more popular (being careful not to associate popularity with correctness). Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of the p-ists and the q-ists, allowing each side to give its "best shot" at the other, but studiously refraining from saying who won the exchange. A point here bears elaboration. We said that the neutral point of view is not, contrary to the seeming implication of the phrase, some actual point of view that is "neutral" or "intermediate" among the different positions. That represents a particular understanding of what "neutral point of view" means. The prevailing Wikipedia understanding is that the neutral point of view is not a point of view at all; according to our understanding, when one writes neutrally, one is very careful not to state (or imply or insinuate or subtly massage the reader into believing) that any particular view at all is correct. Another point bears elaboration as well. Writing unbiasedly can be conceived very well as representing disputes, characterizing them, rather than engaging in them. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of debates. Of course, one might well doubt that this can be done at all without somehow subtly implying or insinuating that one position is correct. But experienced academics, polemical writers and rhetoricians are well-attuned to bias, both their own and others', so that they can usually spot a description of a debate that tends to favor one side. If they so choose, with some creativity, they can usually remove that bias.

This text virtually states what I was saying, that many points of view represent NPOV. It does not go on about "facts". It has never been my intention to "troll". I just think that you {kwh} sometimes remove things that you disagree with, rather than amending them, probably as it is easiest to do. There are too many people around suspecting other people's motives. Wallie 06:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Wallie - don't personally call me out and generalize. Name a specific instance and I'll defend my intentions. I have debated with others about article text, I have been sometimes proven wrong, and I have conceded that. Your criticism that there are too many suspecting other people's motives is noted; it is you who came out and called me an "apologist" for the Met.

Your assertion with regards to Dick's orders is not supported. It is not even a POV stated in the news article you gave. It is your own POV. This does not represent a 'bona-fide dispute' such as the NPOV policy talks about, it is simply you stating your POV as fact. It is as if to say "NBC reported that George Bush said he does not care about black people", rather than "Kanye West claimed on NBC that George Bush does not care about black people." There is a gulf of difference in meaning, even if you believe otherwise. -Kwh 11:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

A little more on this since I did not have time earlier to say all that I wanted to... it's apparent that you are not reading the media articles thoroughly. There are apparently a few media articles which use the phrase "take alive", "to be taken alive", et cetera in their summary or headline. However, none of these attribute these phrases to Cmdr. Dick, nor to the anonymous source; they are the newspaper/media outlet's words, not those of Cmdr. Dick. As such, the phrase "Commander Cressida Dick gave clear and specific orders that Mr Menezes was to be 'taken alive'" is not supported. These outlets do report that Cmdr Dick ordered that "the man was to be '"detained as soon as possible', before entering the station." This obviously implies that he would be taken alive, but the order was not "take him alive" or "do not shoot". Obviously, for some reason or another, the surveillance officers didn't detain him. Obviously, if they had tried and "the man" (remember that Menezes' identity was unknown at this point) resisted, threatened others, or detonated a suicide bomb, he might not be taken alive. I think this should be - umm... - obvious.

Remember also that this is a highly contentious issue on a political level. It's quite possible that this tip from an "anonymous senior police source" is intended to influence the media and public opinion to divert blame from Cmdr. Dick. Basically, while the secret IPCC investigation is still ongoing, an anonymous 'someone' is putting forth defenses to exonerate Cmdr. Dick in the media. As long as Cmdr. Dick seems blameless she might be promoted, perhaps even to replace Blair if he is forced to step down by the results of the IPCC investigation. This ought to be treated with more skepticism rather than less. -Kwh 13:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

OK. I see where you are coming from. I don't think our views are that much different. I do think that the management are actually trying to put the blame on Cmdr. Dick, as she is a reasonably small fish. If she did not order the killing, as she is obviously trying to convey... WHO DID??? This is much more interesting. I think it could be someone else, higher up, possibly nothing to do with the police, but cannot prove it. I and many other members of the public, probably including yourself, would like to know what sort of mind could order such an callous and calculated act. Wallie 16:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Where was he working on the morning of the 7th of July?

Is it already known where he was working on the morning of the 7th of July and the day before that? 131.155.54.18 11:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Shooting - Carriage Narrative

This has been irking me for a while so I wanted to call for discussion, because I don't know the solution. I'm bothered by how the overall narrative seems to "break pace" when we get to the events in the Tube Carriage.

Three surveillance officers, all white English males, codenamed Hotel 1, Hotel 3 and Hotel 9 followed Menezes onto the train. According to Hotel 3, Menezes sat down with a glass panel to his right about two seats in. Hotel 3 then took a seat on the left with about two or three persons between the surveillance officer and Menezes. When the firearms officers arrived on the platform, Hotel 3 moved to the door, blocked it from closing with their left foot, and shouted 'He's here!' to identify the suspect's location.

The firearms officers boarded the train and challenged the suspect. According to Hotel 3, Menezes then stood up and advanced towards the officers and Hotel 3, at which point Hotel 3 grabbed him, pinned his arms against his torso, and pushed him back into the seat. Although Menezes was being restrained, the body of Menezes was straight and not in a natural sitting position. After hearing a shot close to their ear, the surveillance officer was dragged away onto the floor of the carriage. Hotel 3 then shouted 'Police!' and with hands raised was dragged out of the carriage by one of the armed officers who had boarded the train. Hotel 3 then heard several gunshots while being dragged out.

I understand the intent of trying to relate Hotel 3's account accurately from the leaked IPCC documents, describe the scene, etc. I like all the narrative leading up to this point. But this part just doesn't flow right. It certainly isn't climactic; it is definitely prosaic and alike to a debriefing report. Is there any way to represent the facts accurately and fully, in a style which will better engage the reader's attention? We don't have to be Bulwer-Lytton, but the soup needs a bit of salt. -Kwh 03:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi KWH, Maybe you could put this lot into a separate new section called say "Debriefing" somewhere else, and change it, so that it the "pace" is kept up. But make sure that it isn't removed altogehter... Wallie 07:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Mongolian Eyes etc

Hi KWH.

It is certainly not my intention to remove your new work. I did revert to everything you did, as there were a lot of complicated edits that you did. I cannot see all of what you have deleted/added without doing a lot of work. The 'mongolian eyes' bit was removed. You probably don't think this is important, as it was not reported much in the UK. But it got heavy exposure elsewhere, in New York, for example. This is key, as it demonstates the culture of {smart-ass) racism in the police. If anyone removes it, they are possibly trying to cover up.

Also there are the Cressida Dick orders. It is very clear that she gave these orders, and it has been reported that she was upset that they were disobeyed. To say these orders were not conveyed to those reponsible beggars belief, as the line of communication is very strict in the London Police, and these procedures would be rehearsed again and again.

So, if you want to add your info, please do so. But please try not to remove relevant facts. Wallie 07:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Wallie, as noted in my edit notes, the very article which is cited with regards to the Mongolian eyes question states that the observation was made on the bus ride to Stockwell. If it is relevant, it needs to be mentioned at the appropriate time in the narrative. I would perhaps consider that it is unclear verging on biased, as "Mongolian" is not racist. Mongolian/Mongoloid is considered to be a race of humans, so although wrong, there is no bad faith conferred by the officer noting that this matches the general description of suspects as "South Asian". I would say that there is a great distinction between saying "he had Mongolian eyes" and "he had Ni**er lips", for example; the latter is clearly not common parlance, is racist, etc.

It continues to be solely your assertion that these are Cressida Dick's orders, and the text is plainly not supported by the source given. It is only 'very clear' that she gave these orders in your mind. At least two people, myself and Vilcxjo, disagree, and you have not yet responded to substantive points with regards to this. -Kwh 10:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation

It would be good to have some authoritative guide as to pronunciation (if only so that there's no excuse for the media pronouncing "Jean Charles" as though it were French) ... There's already been one such request on this page, but it produced no response. My best shot at an IPA transcription is /ˈʒeã ˈʃarlez de ˈmenezez/, but I’d much rather go with someone who has a decent grasp of Portuguese (and who knows IPA)! Can anyone help?! Vilcxjo 00:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Immigration Status

I am considering removing this section, as I think it has nothing to do with this article. It might have been relevant, if Mr. Menezes was running away, as was reported earlier. But it is now established by the Close Circuit TV cameras that he wasn't. The only reason for keeping this section now, is to make Mr. Menezes look bad. He is not on trial here. Nor is anyone else. Any thoughts, please, before I do the necessary. Thanks. Wallie 08:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I would stick this kind of info in a footnote - they are for more than just citations. Andreww 08:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Have removed it now. The subject is Jean Charles de Menezes (7 January 1978 – 22 July 2005) was a Brazilian electrician living in Tulse Hill in south London, England. Menezes was shot and killed at Stockwell tube station on the London Underground by unnamed Metropolitan Police officers, who had mistaken him for a suspect in the previous day's failed bombings. Menezes had no explosives, had not been behaving suspiciously, and was later found to be unconnected with the attempted bombings. Mr. Menezes's documentation has nothing whatsoever to do with this. Wallie 12:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Cressida Dick

Re: "There's no doubt that Commander Dick did not instruct anyone to shoot de Menezes". [4] Gold Command then transferred control of the operation to SO19, which dispatched firearms officers to Stockwell Tube Station. This text is very very important, as it establishes that Cressida Dick did NOT authorise the killing. If she did not, the question is "who"? I believe she was overriden. I think the order came right from the top. In US parlance this is an "Executive Order". Wallie 16:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

It establishes nothing of the sort. There is a world of difference between not instructing to shoot and instructing not to shoot (the difference between life and death, in fact). The former, which is what the quote says, is entirely compatible with the officers having the option of using lethal force if they judged that the situation required it. The very fact that they were armed implies that they had that option, and that their superior officer(s) accepted that they might exercise that option.

BTW, the link for the quote is dead. Vilcxjo 21:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. That's the pity. We'll probably never know who actually gave the order. But from the way the killing was carried out, it was most probably carefully planned, and there would be a "go/no go" in force. I have replaced the link with another, which presents the same info as the old link. Wallie 14:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Wallie... please, more facts, less conspiracy theorizing. -Kwh 05:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)