Monday, July 25, 2005

Why Did Jean Charles de Menezes Run?

Once, many moons ago, I was in London with a friend, walking along a pavement close to Piccadilly Circus, when we were suddenly grabbed and hustled roughly into a doorway by two men. It happened very suddenly, we were terrified and, as one of the men grabbed my friends bag, ripping it out of her hand, I was convinced we were being mugged, and probably about to be hurt.

If an escape route had been available, we would have taken it, but we were trapped in the confined space of the doorway, with one of the men holding us as the other started rifling through the handbag. Only at this point did one of the men, who were both aggressive and scruffily dressed, identify themselves as being police officers, verbally, with no attempt at any time to produce a warrant card.

They muttered that they had a report of some incident, and that we fitted the description they had, went through my pockets, then handed back the bag, told us we could go, and disappeared. All this probably took less than a minute.

These guys didn't look like cops, they didn't act like cops are supposed to act, they didn't identify themselves before manhandling us. Had we had the opportunity we most certainly would have run, and possibly lashed out. These tossers, of course, were unarmed, but frightened us badly.
___________________________

So why did poor Jean Charles de Menezes, a Brazilian electrician with no connection to terrorists, run? He was not being pursued by uniformed cops. Would the outcome have been different if they had been in uniform? Was a warning given, did he hear it? If it was given did he understand it, and when was it given? What was he thinking was happening? We will never know that, of course.

Frankly, it is not difficult to imagine several more scenarios where a person might not stop, none of which justify a summary execution.

I understand the dreadful position police are faced with in situations like the one in London at this time. Certainly I would not wish to be in their shoes, and would not dare predict what my reaction would be with a gun in my hand and a life or death decision to make within a millisecond. My way of making important choices is to go and have a cup of tea - or three.

But already the ranks are closing, with politicians, the great and the good and the police trotting out the usual platitudes, while warning us other innocents are likely to die at the hands of the police. Given the rather poor record of policemen with guns, even in more peaceful times, this is rather stating the obvious. Also obvious is the fact that another blunder like this will wreck relations with some sections of our society, while giving every terrorist out there the biggest laugh of their lives while they sit back, feet up, watching Police Constable Plod doing their job for them.

An interesting article in the Sunday Times on the shooting. Also here, and here, and here.

And here Donald Macintyre says something about the Israeli policy on handling suicide bombers. The British police, of course, studied their methods.
___________________________

UPDATE at 12.59pm: Just announced, the reason he ran. I certainly would not have thought of this scenario, and it makes the whole episode no more acceptable and no less tragic.

Comments:
Touche. Still, though, cops make mistakes. Having never lived in a country where police officers don't always carry guns, I am, perhaps, more used to this kind of thing. (Not that that's a good thing, of course.) The other day, in LA, a guy was holding his infant daughter hostage with a gun, and the cops tried to shoot around the kid and missed, killing the child with a bullet to the head.

That said, this probably was excessive force. The Times article does give the impression that the command to "neutralize" the guy was a bad move.

What I'm really curious about, and what probably won't (possibly rightfully) become public info anytime soon, is why this guy's house was under surveillance. Was this guy being used as a dupe by actual terrorists to find out what a police reaction to a suicide bomber might be? That seems possible, but unlikely. Were the police watching the house because a bunch of sketchy-looking brown people lived there? That seems to be the way the cops would do it in Chicago or LA, and we haven't had terrorist attacks there, yet. (Note: sarcasm doesn't always translate well to text)

Also, if the running guy was under surveillance from his house to the tube, why the hell did they let him get on the train?! Methinks the "gold commander's" "snap decision" took too damn long.
 
Correction: eight bullet mistake.

I do agree with tyler--this guy should not have been allowed to get on the train at all if he was under suspicion. And I hope that Tony Blair communicates acceptable wardrobe choices to the general public in the near future to prevent other such tragedies from occurring.
 
Sarkasmo and Tyler, thanks to you both. The question as to why it was acceptable for this man to ride a bus, never mind getting to the train if the intelligence was so good, is now being asked here and certainly requires a detailed explanation - but I doubt if much accurate information will be forthcoming.

As I understand it so far, the police were watching a block of flats, so there would be no way of knowing which flat Jean Charles exited.

Wardrobe choice? Someone has already produced a white tee shirt with big letters back and front, 'I'm Not Brazilian - Don't Shoot'. Sounds appropriate, but don't wear a jacket.
 
As I understand it so far, the police were watching a block of flats...

Wow, that's what Scotland Yard meant when they said "The dead man had been seen leaving an address in south London where police had been carrying out surveillance[?!]" It's good to see that precision in language is as common over on your side of the pond as it is here. That's almost as sharp as Bush's "Weapons of mass destruction related program activities."
 
Thanks Tyler, and it seems to get worse each day.
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

© Colcam 2005-2007