A terrible, terrible tragedy, and illustrative of the evil Hobson's Choice forced on those we have asked to protect us. Because there is no real choice here - where someone is suspected of carrying an explosive device capable of killing scores of innocents, all the police can do is what they did: make every effort to capture and detain, and when those efforts fail, end the threat decisively and efficiently.

I'm not being cold about this - nor are the police. I imagine those officers who shot and killed this young man are tortured by what the Monday morning armchair quarterbacks are calling "a mistake". I feel terrible about his fate and feel compassion for his family.

Those who are now criticizing the police for their actions would be the same ones who would be tearing into the same police if they acted indecisively and , instead of shooting to kill, played by traditional rules and allowed a suicide bomber to take out a tube station or a bus.

They can't, of course. They have to play by the terrorists' rules on this one. And innocent citizens need to learn the rules, too, for our own safety. In the world the terrorists have created, there is no other option.

They won't negotiate, because they have no goals other than murder of innocents. So it's war. And if we know anything, it's that in war, innocents die. But let's attach the blame firmly where it belongs.

How broadly is that principle applicable? I understand a bit about the rules of "hot pursuit" so I am not particularly divided from Nils given the very particular facts...but where do we go with "all for war everlasting" stuff? Remember, this was not in hte military but the police. Are the police at war?

Tough question, for sure, Alan, and I'm trying to wrap my head around it. There's no real precedent - it'd be easy to say "Well, if this had been WWII and a troop of Nazi soldiers had landed, we'd expect the police to act as if they were at war with them." But then, we'd also expect the local citizenry to join in the shooting, too ... and do we want THAT? I think pretty emphatically NOT.

Although, having said that, would I approve if a private citizen saw a terrorist reach for the bomb trigger and took what is called "executive action"? Sure.

The rules, I guess are open for debate and may be entirely situational - something with which none of us is totally comfortable. But it may be long past time to admit we're out of our comfort zone, and act accordingly.

No offense Nils, but I think everybody should calm down. I think that when people panic they make bad decisions. That's the lesson that we should take from this.

Also, it is true that in times of war people do all kinds of thing, but I don't think this is a war except in the metaphorical sense of 'the war on drugs,' which was also not a war. I think you have to have more reason to shoot a person during peace time than that they look suspicious. I'm not even convinced that the police knew who he was (he was Catholic for Christ sake!). Did they know his name? Did they know he was from Brazil? Had they even seen him before? I think they were (justifiably) freaked out by recent events and they saw a guy in the area who looked 'suspicious' and they jumped to conclusions. On the other hand, the main issue for me is moral and societal. That is, for me, this isn't so much about second guessing the individual decisions of police officers (God, it must be hard to be a cop anywhere, but especially in Britain right now) as it is about us, our behaviour and the kinds of laws we want to live by. Are we a world at war? Personally, I don't think so.

I don't dispute much of what you say, Marian, and I certainly don't take offense. These are thorny issues indeed, and it's meet and proper we should bat them about vigourously. And God knows we don't want anybody - police or otherwise - to act with deadly force because somebody looks suspicious.

In this case, though (according to reports, and I will concede that "reports" have an unpleasant propensity to morph according to the needs of the reporters), the fellow was shot because a) he emerged from a house that was under surveillance for suspicious activities; b) he was wearing bulky clothing which concealed a suspicious-looking object, replete with wires; c) he was challenged, and did not (for what now appears, in 20/20 hindsight, to be understandable reasons) respond appropriately to the challenge; and d) he fit the physical profile associated with these crimes (his religion, while of note now, was, of course, not known). It was a tragic confluence of coincidences - the worst kind of luck.

It seems to me that there are two kinds of panic at work here - one, that the police are jittery and could be over-zealous, and the other, that well-intentioned and right-thinking people are concerned about the potential for over-reaction and thus urge the kind of caution that could lead to further bombings and more widespread mayhem. I'm undecided about which would be worse.

I do take issue with the comparison of this war to the war on drugs. This war stopped being symbolic when non-combatants were injured and killed. Any doubts that it has all the characteristics of a real war should have been laid to rest during the second wave of (less successful, but equally malignant in purpose) bombings. There is a real enemy (albeit elusive); the weapons are real; and the potential for death and destruction a constant threat.

I don't know that there is anything at all symbolic about this war, and while I echo your need for caution to a point, I also know that there's no way to win this with ideology and merit of argument. And no compromise can be achieved.

We don't have to like it. But that doesn't change the fact that we're in it.

This was done in the immediate aftermath of the second bombing, no? Conclusions have to be made, quickly, even those jumped to, and the conclusions made by the plain clothes is immenintely reasonable(a man wearing a bulky coat, wires dangling, refusing to obey orders from the police and running away in the midst of a bombing campaign, not just a bomb scare, a campaign).
I wonder if this would've happened if there wasn't as much talk about the police being racists and oppressive? If instead the image of them as 'your pal', as Alan put it on JoA's blog not to long ago, would he have been scared?
If you're going to weigh societal impacts you have to do all the factors, not just those that are convinient.
Ry

I grew up in a western and civil society. I'm proud of that.
Someone was murdered. If justice is being served, and we talk about murder here, someone is to blame. In my society running away for cops in a pretty hectic situation doesn't make the victim guilty.
Remember the day before this tragedy, several senior officers claimed that the victim was in some way related to the suicide bombers. Seems to me like wrong information all the way.

(The eye-witness of the murder, Mark Whitby, says the following, and I simply agree with it: "Whitby last night told The Observer: 'The death of anyone, involved [in terrorism] or not, to me is abhorrent.'" (see here: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1535226,00.html)

We're in it, but what are we in?

The war on drugs also involved non-combatants getting killed. The metaphor of war involves the symbol of war being applied to something which is more or less a policing conflict it does not imply that there are no innocent deaths. Think of the conflict over drugs in the ghettos and gang 'warfare.' The war on drugs also involved international conflict and investment by Western powers in battles abroad all of which involved a significant number of innocent deaths.

I think our best weapon in this conflict is information and by information I don't mean quantity, I mean quality. It's useless to keep files of info on every dullard in the world with their DNA and fingerprints and medical records in it. On the other hand a lot of ground work needs to be done on cultural context, and of course, on known agitators. Knowing what a conflict is about for those who are perpetrators is important for predicting what is a likely target in the future. If we just throw up our hands and say they're insane, then we are lost.

Re: our poor Brazilian friend this is what the Star has to say about what the cops knew before they shot him:

"Police have changed their story three times about whether Menezes emerged from a specific south London apartment they had under surveillance or whether he simply emerged from the apartment block. The latter now seems to be the case.

They followed him as he boarded a bus and road more than two kilometres to the subway. If police believed he was a suicide bomber posing an imminent threat, why did they allow him to board a bus?

"If he had a bomb he could have blown it off on the bus," said Menezes' cousin, Alex Pereira, 28.

"They had to kill someone to show the whole population they are working (to) make the country safe," he told the BBC.

"My cousin's death was the result of police incompetence," Pereira said.

Police chased Menezes into the subway station. Blair has said that Menezes disobeyed police orders to stop. None of the witnesses cited in media reports say they heard the plainclothes officers identify themselves as police before jumping Menezes.

What they have said is that officers had Menezes pinned to the ground of a train when they immediately pumped five bullets into him at point-blank range.

Witness Mark Whitby, 47, told The Toronto Star that the shooters didn't hesitate — "not for a split second" — before opening fire.

Police have said that the clothes Menezes was wearing made him look suspicious. Witnesses say his jacket seemed too thick for the warm weather.

But Menezes' friends note that what Londoners consider warm weather often feels cool to Brazilians."

So their information was not that good. They saw him coming out of a suspect's apartment block. That's pretty bad. It means that a lot of dark skinned people in the area are going to be feeling pretty worried about heading out of doors.

I was going to jump on this, but a quick review:
http://www.wunderground.com/global/stations/03772.html
makes me think the police f*cked up big time.

David, do you mean this: http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/EGLL/2005/7/22/DailyHistory.html?

Nobody commenting here, including myself, has the remotest idea what happened at this incident beyond what has been reported in an often incompetent press. To suggest the police are "changing their story", as if this is suggestive of some duplicitous intent, is frankly vile.

I am content to wait for the results of an investigation. Short of that, we can only address this incident in abstractions. One that seems to be missing here is the moral and legal duty of the police to act to prevent mass murder. It is all too easy to imagine an incident where the police have to act quickly to prevent someone who * is * carrying a bomb. I can only pray this tragedy does not give an office pause that results in dozens of deaths. This is an incredibly difficult duty to uphold and thankfully is not a position in which I find myself. I am only grateful there are people whose duty is to protect me when I want to take public transit.

The whole incident just makes me sick to my stomach. Executed under the British-adopted "Operation Kratos" guidelines for what appears to be his mere error in judgment.

But as Nils and Ry point out,what was this guy thinking (expired Visa, or no expired Visa)? Bulky clothing, wires, etc. and RUNNING from those who identify themselves as police into a subway train, within days of other deadly bombings? (BTW, I can't believe that they didn't identify themselves as police officers).

Did he think this was some elaborate "game"? He obivously didn't appreciate that his life was at stake.

Thanks guys for some good discussion as I was at the beach in Maine. <p>I know what DJ master Flea is saying - and he is right - but these events, especially the loss of innocent life in the name of democracy, should make us each ask ourselves what we believe as that should all go into the mix of what should come from this. <p>Myself, I have been at a first level inquiry in 1986 when the Syrians were bombing Paris, once missing me and my pals by a few minutes, and, when travelling one evening across town, a cop opened my jacket slowly with the barrel of his machine gun in a subway station only to find just my hidden open half drunk bottle of wine. When I said in broken French that in Canada open wine was really bad, the guy with the machine gun laughed and laughed and called his pals over to laugh and laugh. All I could think of was the machine gun that had been pointed at my breast and moved the coat my mom had bought me a few weeks before. <p>Being a cop is awfully awfully hard and, as ry says, it is one of the things in my job with the City I am proudest to support with the skills I have been given. But an investigation is required as a man who was just going to work is dead. I am also confident that a proper investigation will occur.

I'm also confident that an open and scrupulous investigation will occur. And I want to stop Flea in his tracks on the issue of anyone here suggesting that the police are acting duplicitously. I did say that reports, in these situations, have a propensity to change. I'm unapologetic about that - it's not particularly incendiary new information, in that it always happens. Marian was careful to attribute the suggestion of changed reports to The Star. And others simply linked to a site. I'm not seeing anything vile here - just some thoughtful comments and soul-searching.

Proper thing.

I agree that the investigation will cast blame where it belongs or won't if it isn't merited.
I also agree that we need to ask ourselves what we really believe in: rule of law or rule of compassion/feelings/man?
In Western society we give a lot of power to the police to enforce those rules. Breaking the rules, dissing that authority, has serious consequences. WOT or no, breaking the law and dissing duly granted authority is serious--not so serious as to merit shooting the guy but the stakes were a bit higher here weren't they?--and the consequences should be serious too.
Yeah, cops abuse power at times. Nobody is claiming they don't. But why have we all jumped on oneside or another? Does "Rashomon effect" mean anything here?
Alan's right. Let's wait till we have facts to make up our minds.

Now I have to Google "Rashomon effect".

To quote my favorite columnist, Monsieur <strike>Steyn</strike> Makenosense:<strike><small><small><small><small><small>

"And although I've had a ton of e-mails pointing out various sinister aspects of his behaviour - he was wearing a heavy coat! he refused to stop! - it seems to me there are an awful lot of people on the Tube who might easily find themselves in Mr de Menezes's position...
If the defence of what happened to Mr de Menezes is that it was the right treatment but the wrong patient and we'd better get used to it, perhaps the British Tourist Board could post signs at Terminal Four: "BIENVENUE A LONDRES! WE SHOOT TO KILL!"</small></small></small></small></small></strike>

While you have tiny fonted/slashed out Steyn, the simple point that...<blockquote>...revisionist back pedelling blah, blah blah...<blockquote class="smalltext"><small><strike> he is making is to point out the fact that all Londoners, and in particular users of the public transit system, including poor Mr. de Menezes, might have benefited from some notice that lethal force would be used against them for failure to immediately submit to police authority.

We know this now, of course - a little too late for Mr. de Menezes, however.</strike></small></blockquote></blockquote>Signs. Yup, that is what the world needs. So people after can say "there was a sign, you know."

Well maybe not signs per se, but what was the scheme used to notify the public that a policy such as this was to be enacted by the police? I certainly don't remember hearing about it and usually a story such as that would be absolutely plastered over all my normal media sources as well as even the mainstream ones.

(and whats the deal with shrinking out and/or slashing the text of commentators?)

Rich, read the archive. It is a limited privilege.

On the issue of whether this is a 'war' or not this from the Wednesday July 27 issue of the International Herald Tribune: "Washington recasts terror war as 'struggle'"

The Bush administration is retooling its slogan for the fight against terrorist groups, pushing the idea that the long-term struggle is as much an ideological battle as a military mission, according to senior administration and military officials...Administration officials say the earlier phrase may have outlived its usefulness, because it focused attention solely, and incorrectly, on the military campaign"

As far as I am concerned the above can be read in a number of ways some of them good, some of them bad. However, since this is the Bush administration and since they aren't calling it a war anymore, I think the least we can do is to follow suit.

Here is the web site with the article.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/26/news/terror.php

I am reading a fair bit down here on the US military's dissatisfaction with the lack of commitment to the Iraq war (no US leads appointed for months, lack of war footing in the general population) so that test balloon about shifting the message does not surprise me. I wonder if this will now after all become a policing matter.

I get your point on "there was a sign, ya know" but Rich's point can't be easily dismissed - as a parent, for instance, you might want to have had a talk with your ocassional marijuana using teenage kids that if stopped for whatever reason, running from the police into the subway etc. might cost them their lives. I'm sure those conversations are going on now over bangers and mash.

I don't need a sign or notice on a policy change that if I hear "Halt! Police!" I halt and that if I run from the police, I risk my safety. There is no new in that.

Right, but how if it's just 3 guys yelling this at you that they're "police" and all dressed like joe scumbags? Just mentioning this because a month back I saw a TTC plainclothes take down of someone sneaking into the Eglinton Avenue bus station and this is exactly what it looks like.

Well, it is a crime to impersonate a police officer so if someone were to falsely say "Halt! Police!" there would be very serious ramifications. Remember you have a right to silence but you do not have a right to run away and never did. In the context of the bombings in the Underground or any other crime scene, running away is a heightened risk. I am not saying anyone who creates a chase "gets what they deserve" if they are killed but the chase that they create is obviously a large factor in the consequences.

Right, but if you're a "bad guy" and are willing to use a gun, adding "halt! police!" won't compound the offense that much.

I'm not defending the police or the guy who would/did run away; rather, it's possible that both sides acting rationally can create a bad result. I find this somewhat interesting and understanding this could be used to modify behaviour in such situations. Obviously, "don't run" is a good suggestion but given that we have more say over the police's behavior than any random person, it'd be nice to know if there was some other pre-emptive behaviour the cops could have done/should be doing.

You may risk incarceration in most civilized countries by running from the police provided you actually did something that warranted arrest in the first place. What people might still require a bit of "warming up" to is the possibility that you might not recognize those guys following you with guns as police (plainclothes), people might also want to know ahead of time that even if they catch you, pin you down and have the situation under control they still might shoot you five times in the back of the head. I know I'd rather know such things could be done legally by police in Canada rather than my mom get a letter in the mail because 5 guys chased me down Rideau street and I thought it prudent to get the hell out of there... we don't even have any evidence that they *said* they were police as they were chasing this guy.

But as always we are not parsing unauthenticated fact around here but debating ethics. The only question is how does a citizen in a democracy act when the police tell him or her to halt? If the police were in a car behind me on the road and flashed their lights - would anyone of you actually not stop?

Re: US plans and their 'rebranding' strategy, I read a story in the Herald Tribune or in the Guardian that suggests that the US may be thinking of pulling out of Iraq next spring. Unfortunately, I can't find it now, so I can't refer to it specifically.

I think the issue of identification is important in the shoot to kill case. Menezes may not have known his pursuers were cops. None of the witnesses heard them identify themselves. Also, how any of us would act is irrelevant to the ethical and practical question I am interested in which is whether the policy is a good one and when and if it should be applied. All of us law abiding citizens might stop, but someone else might not. Someone from Brazil or Mexico or even Hungary given the kind of cops they know back home might not. For instance, if I were a Roma from Hungary, I would be running too. I don't think this would be a rare occurrence. The Mexican police force is one of the most corrupt in the world. Add to this the potential for a language barrier and you have a problem. Essentially you either have the death penalty being meted out for the comparatively small crime of poor English and running away either from some thugs, or running from some cops you think are probably so corrupt they are no better than thugs. I don't think the punishment for those crimes should be instant death. The punishment for paranoia or ignorance should not be death either. So there has to be a clearer definition of 'suspicious' (i.e. one that would rule out this kind of thing) or there should be some other change made to the policy to ensure that this does not happen again. I think big signs might help and maybe a campaign to inform people.

Just want to note this:<blockquote class="smalltext">Leaked evidence<p>
CCTV footage is said to show the man walking at normal pace into the station, picking up a copy of a free newspaper and apparently passing through the barriers before descending the escalator to the platform and running to a train. He boarded a Tube train, paused, looking left and right, and sat in a seat facing the platform.</blockquote>From the Beeb on the apparently leaded evidence.

If the "leaked evidence" holds up, it's bad, bad, bad: bad intelligence, bad surveillance, bad judgment - amounting to nothing short of an execution of a hapless subway user. It can not even somehow rise to a case of "mistaken identity" or a "take down, gone wrong". Could have been you or I, Al.

Next time, I vote for you rather than me. I trust you appreciate my position on this and do not take it personally.

I always notice these things. The image is from the BBC and appears to indicate it was on ITV TV news.<p>Why are his shoes off?<p><center><img src="images/2005e/_40698032_menezes_itv_news203.jpg"></center>

Somehow I can picture you pointing slyly towards me - while I sit next to you on the tram, obliviously reading my free paper - with you mouthing the words "he's got a bomb" to the police as they approach....practical joker that you are.

The shoes? Dunno. Suspected shoebomber?

But it was under the bulky coat...oh...there never was one. What did Anthony Larkin really see?

Wow. That's just awful.