The Brazillian man shot in London seems more like a "hit job".... he knew?

** He was NOT wearing a heavy bulky coat -- eye witness say it was a jean jacket.

Where are all the PHOTO's of this "heavy jacket"?


** The men following and subsequently killed him had followed him from house in the morning and allowed him to "board a bus".

Why "board allow borading a bus" is worried about a suicide bomber?


** Witness's say he used a "card" to pay for tube transit -- not jumping the turnstyle

Where is the video showing the "jumping and running"????


** Last but not least -- this guy was an ELECTRICIAN. What did he KNOW and what "jobs" has he been involved with???

He knew people were following him (not police).

He knew people wanted him dead.

The question is why?????


I think he knew too much and they "killed him".


Who knows....maybe he had put 2+2 together and was going public .

How would an electrician know what? Was he involved in the military or some other group. Sorry,not following you on this one. Could it just be that overzealous agents followed the wrong man?

or perhaps they were ordered to come up with a victim, or perhaps, as the OP theorizes, de Menezes actually did know something and this was in fact a hit.

I think if it were a hit it would have been done in a far less spectacular manner. The deliberately public nature of de Menezes execution leads me to think that they had the wrong man, they didn't care, and they wanted it to be public.

are always incredulous as to why they are mistrusted and held in contempt in many areas.

to everyone he can find ...it would blow the "fairy tale" of the police.

as a co-conspirator with others, why not just arrest him and subject him to a public trial? Why a "hit squad". How less goonish is a hit squad than a terrorist?

It would seem to me that if the Blair government is interested in prosecuting this "war on terror", they would want a hook to engeage the public in it. How would "talking" compromise their goals?

was behind them OR plans that were in the "works"...and not yet hatched.

Maybe he said he had enough and was going public...maybe they tapped his phone.


They wanted him dead.

intelligence?

It's just the jabberings of someone looking for conspiracy where none exists.

were covert operations, just like 911.

Your theory makes no sense. Armed police officers don't perform executions in public places. Are you now suggesting that the Metropolitan Police execute people in this manner? That's a very serious accusation. I hope you've got some evidence.

the original poster's comments. He appears to believe that the cops publicly executed this man. Talk to him.

1) not exactly the 'metropolitan police', this was a special tactics team trained in something called 'Kratos'. Your characterization here is a deliberate attempt to reframe this as the beloved bobbies in full bobby regalia.

2) armed undercover special tactics officers most certainly did perform a public execution. They pinned de Menezes to the floor of the train and unloaded a full clip from an automatic pistol into the base of his skull while he was pinned to the floor.

this was a special tactics team trained in something called 'Kratos'

Kratos is the name of the ongoing operation to find the people responsible for the attacks, and to prevent new ones.

Your characterization here is a deliberate attempt to reframe this as
the beloved bobbies in full bobby regalia.

I believe everyone is aware at this point that these were not your normal patrol officers. Anyway, their provenance is completely irrelevant.

2) armed undercover special tactics officers most certainly did perform a public execution.

Sorry. Assasination. You know what I meant.

They pinned de Menezes to the floor of the train and unloaded a full clip from an automatic pistol into the base of his skull while he was pinned to the floor.

I don't see anyone disputing that, do you? That isn't the basis of this thread. The basis of this tread, as is obvious from the OP, is the suggestion that he was intentionally targeted and killed to "shut him up." This is a position for which no evidence exists, and thus this suggestion is wholly unsupported.

that I also have found not compelling. You seem to be trying to reframe what happened as perhaps some sort of accident, something other than a public execution by a team trained to do exactly what it did, and no matter how tedious it gets I am going to object to that reframing everytime I see it. I am not the brightest bulb on the planet but I am fucking tenacious.

a subtle message to all the Brazilian electricians who "knew too much." Was he part of the movement to legalize Lonnie Anderson's hair? Where are the films of his wearing a wig? It all fits together.

:rofl: this whole thing just cracks me up everytime I think about it. I can't decide which is funnier: 'anchorman' or the de Menezes execution.

:sarcasm:

was offensive.

offensive to white male doofuses everywhere. On the other hand it seems that the de Menezes execution was just good clean fun. Got it.

the Nobility Peace Prize, for your being the only person offended. And your posts on here are funnier than anchorman. Get a gripe.

OR he may have known somebody he worked on thier "planting devices".

Either way ... they tracked him...followed him and assinated him and lied to cover.


The men in black were a "hit team".

get the red flags waving for an investigation.

It isn't clear exactly which gun was used or if it was semi or full auto, but it seems that tne entire clip was unloaded.

delivering large boxes of explosives with the White House seal on it or something like that.

Just a hunch???????????

KL

A war on terror can never be won unless the underlying issues are addressed. Politicians can't address the issues when there are economic and political constraints on their ability to do so. Oil interests and AIPAC allegiances dictate ME policy.

The team that executed de Menezes was trained to do exactly what they did. The government of GB might have lost control, the police were acting under orders.

assuming all dark skinned people are trrorists.

The Just following orders defense.

In fact I've taken a lot of heat from DU'ers who are defending this crap. I get a rash over what I see as the 'panicked cop defense', and I wanted to make clear for the 100,000th time, that this was not a case of 'panicked cops'.

But sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

do you actually have a reliable source claiming it was a matter of "police losing control"?

Actually 'shoot-first-ask-questions-later' is a new policy, passed without consent of the citizens. This is what worries the Brits more then the killing itself.

And uhm, they'd have lost control only after following the guy for like 15 minutes?

So again, how do you know the cops "lost control"?

although I suspect the answer is less conspiratorial. My assessment is that these teams were let loose at some point after the 7/7 attack, (the teams with the Kratos training in 'tackle and kill' tactics) and that de Menezes simply walked out of the wrong door at the wrong time being off white enough to be mistaken for a Pakistani. The team followed him until he was in a train station where he posed a substantial threat, because their orders did not allow them to initiate a tackle and kill operation until the target posed a substantial threat. My guess is that the bus was not enough of a threat to qualify.

I think ultimately the answer is that the police special tactics Kratos trained teams were under some pressure to come up with a victim in order to 'send a message' and they did come up with a victim, they just totally fucked up on their choice. Had de Menezes been Pakistani the original story would have been maintained.

Just my opinion of course.

that ruins the suicide bomb theory and saving innocent people.

He didn't stop for a reason...the "hit men" were not plain clothes police...he knew this was not good and refused to stop.


I think people in London can connect the dots quite easily and it all points to the crap that's being pulled to keep the world in fear.

Because the way you execute someone is by having armed men gun him down in front of hundreds of witnesses and in a way designed to get the most international attention on EVERY ASPECT of the event. I mean, hell, they teach you that on the first day of CIA school.

Far worse ... these were the people who replaced Paul McCartney with an exacxt look-alike in 1967. By chance, the guy they replaced him with was a fair musician (though a studio musician, hence no touring), and the other Beatles were so afraid to talk, that they only let the elite alert fans know through a series of clues. This electrician had likely found the "missing" clue .... and he had to die.

Another mystery solved ......

when you want to 'send a message'.

So are you subscribing to the panicked police theory?

"Met Police: We randomly shoot people" ???

be very afraid


I'd say that the message was quite effectively communicated.

But most people here are handling it rationally from what I've seen.

about what has happened. A lot of people for example seem to be in denial about what role their government is taking in this affair and how the government views its role with respect to the people when it comes to providing security.

him in front of all the witnesses.
That defies any logic.

Nobody would suspect it was an execution because this is an illogical way to execute someone! Huzzah! I'm an investigator! Excuse me while I post this to my blog.

They've chosen the most bizarre route known to man.

Wouldn't it have been a lot easier to:
Refuse to release the man's name
Claim he was indeed carrying a bomb
Take plaudits for stopping a bomber

Instead they have:
Released the victim's name
Apologized
Met with the family
Launched an independent investigation

To make it look like an "accident", if somebody in MI-whatever wanted him dead?

Even the KGB could make people drop dead mysteriously.

I'm listening on the radio right now, and they're getting ready to blow another guy's brains out in Notting Hill...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

simple questions...he was definitely not a suicide bomber and they knew it

the continuing stream of bullshit and disinformation. What the fuck are they still hiding?

This is completely inane and lacks any supporting evidence. The tendency of some people around here to shout "Mossad!" any time something out-of-the-ordinary happens is repulsive.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

We do know that the Israelis have been advising and training the Met police on how to deal with suicide bombers because Sir Ian Blair has said so.

If I were training on how to deal with suicide bombers, you bet your ass I'd go to the Israelis.

So if the guy was a suicide bomber why the hell chase him down the escalator when he could have turned round yelled Allah is Great and then exploded himself on the spot at any time?

I hear a lot of this sort of comment. I just want to know what YOU would do, if you were in their shoes.

OK it is circumstantial but not less so than any other theory doing the rounds.

My point exactly.

he other alternative, that the Met police are rushing around London in plain clothes waiting for any excuse to unload their guns into any olive skinned male under 30 who fails to obey a stop command

Yes, I see all those beady-eyed police running around, just screeching for blood.

Your police made a tragic error of mistaken identity and got themselves all in a panic when they believed they had a suicide bomber. Blame them for their many errors in judgement, stop fobbing off the blame on Mossad.

In fact it is a totally dishonest mischaracterization. She said that there was a mossad advisor attached to the team. That would make sense as "Kratos training" is mossad tactics taught it seems by mossad, so having an advisor from mossad attached to the team is actually quite a reasonable theory. Rather than dishonestly trying to portray the post as anti semetic, you should perhaps examine why, when you see the slightest hint of an israeli connection, you have an uncontrollable and irrational reaction.

The title of the post:
Brazilian killing in London - did Mossad do it?

You:
Rather than dishonestly trying to portray the post as anti semetic,

Now who's mischaracterizing?

ou should perhaps examine why, when you see the slightest hint of an israeli connection, you have an uncontrollable and irrational reaction.

The title of her post, again, since you seem to have missed it the first and second times:
Brazilian killing in London - did Mossad do it?

I always have very irritable reactions to people who make accusations of murder with no basis in fact.

Hush hush on that Mossad stuff.

Our cops lose control quite frequently when dark-skinned men are the target--probably the same type thinking as Mossad.

"After the suicide bomb attacks in London on 7 July it is thought the Met's Anti-Terrorist Branch implemented its own pre-arranged response to suicide bombers, based on Acpo advice.

Codenamed Operation Kratos, and based on the experiences of the Israeli security forces, the guidance reportedly states that an officer can shoot a suspect in the head if it is thought he is a suicide bomber who poses an imminent danger to police or the public.

Eyewitnesses at Stockwell station on Friday said they saw police officers fire five shots into the head of the suspect.

If Operation Kratos is being used, it would be the first time a shoot-to-kill policy was officially allowed on British streets."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711619.stm

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

There's nothing there to imply that Mossad was involved in the killing of the Brazilian man, so what are you talking about? Do you know anything that we don't know?

but then, their press isn't as censored as ours.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I also see that the account has been deleted, which I would have preferred been allowed to stand, because there was nothing but pure blaming speculation and NO evidence, and the argument was easily shot down.

I still don't see your point on this thread that news about Mossad is censored in the US. And particularly in this case, when Mossad is not responsible for the death of the Brazillian man.

That a report BBC that informs that mossad was asked to provide help on how to deal with terrorists, which is not surprising, as mossad is brought in frequently to give advice by many countries and local govt's.

How much do you know about Mossad? I doubt very much that "Mossad loses control when dark-skinned men are the target", especially since a large part of Mossad members are exactly the same "dark" color as the terrorists that they target being descendents of jewish-arabic refugees of neighboring countries to Israel.



edit: spelling

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Some people will find any way they could to blame Israel, won't they and take the blame away from their own gov'ts, and frankly I'm tired of this bullshit and speculative quotes about 'popular view'.

It was YOUR OWN fucking cops who made this horrible mistake in front of many witnesses! It was a tragic mistake, enacted quickly in a panic. From reading news reports, de Menendez ran away from the police because his visa ran out, and he wrongly assumed that the cops that were after him were trying to confront him on immigration violations, not realizing that a case of mistaken identity was taking place and would lead to his death.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711619.stm


After the suicide bomb attacks in London on 7 July it is thought the Met's Anti-Terrorist Branch implemented its own pre-arranged response to suicide bombers, based on Acpo advice.

Codenamed Operation Kratos, and based on the experiences of the Israeli security forces, the guidance reportedly states that an officer can shoot a suspect in the head if it is thought he is a suicide bomber who poses an imminent danger to police or the public.

Eyewitnesses at Stockwell station on Friday said they saw police officers fire five shots into the head of the suspect.

If Operation Kratos is being used, it would be the first time a shoot-to-kill policy was officially allowed on British streets.

Britain sought training on how to deal with terrorists from Mossad. That is legitimate and I'm sur emany governments have done so. That doesn't mean that mossad was running around the streets of London killing that man, or even calling the shots here. You have nothing there in your link that implies that mossad was responsible for this tragedy.

It is not a mossad connection, it is just a connection to mossad. Thanks for clarifying the situation. I retract everyting I ever said to anyone ever.

Brilliant! :crazy:

It takes a great mind to uncover all the connections. (Yikes!)

I read somewhere that his firm was consulted. And, he was in London at the time of the first bombings. Coincidence? :sarcasm: :evilgrin:

in upstate New York. Try explaining that one. (The fact you can't obviously means you do not share the outrage! Maybe you have a copy of The Playbook?)

however specifically in this case this training was directly from mossad. Google Kratos for crying out loud. Or better yet keep making snide comments and ignoring reality. Does it make you feel safer?

The mossad sub-thread here started with a poster reporting a rumor that speculates that the mossad-trained team that performed the execution of de Menezes had with it a mossad advisor and that it may have been this advisor that actually did the execution. There is nothing actually unreasonable in that as a theory, and the OP admitted that it was just rumor. The poster was then roundly criticised, as usual, for being antisemitic as of course, any mention of anything remotely israeli is immediate proof that one is a jew hater.

Then you clowns went on with a complete mischaracterization of the original post, attacking the strawman argument that 'mossad did it' which argument was not made, and ridiculing any suggestion that there is any mossad connection at all, despite being presented with exactly that connection from that known anti-semitic propaganda organ for al qaeda, the bbc.

Have a nice day. Keep up the good work.

A rumor which the original poster stated it to be, and which you acknowledged. Is that how you understand the happenings of the world, through rumor and conjecture? No one on this thread who argued against this rumor even used the words 'antisemetic', so your obsessiveness with this point seems to be your main motive, because you certainly aren't arguing facts here. There are no reports that the team of officers who pursued Menendez were anything but British. They themselves made the tragic error and are themselves to blame.


edit:sp

the rumor was that a mossad advisor was with the team. The facts it seems are that the team itself received training from mossad. Once again you seem to be more interested in scoring points by twisting your opponents words than by engaging in discussion. Why is that?

We'll be in the dark forever on this one.

The cops fucked up and followed the wrong guy, he ran - whether because he thought the police were thugs who were going to rob him or because of his expired visa and illegal worker status - the cops panicked, and their operational command (not on the scene, in radio contact) told them to take the guy out.

And I'd say it's a bit of a stretch for you to say "he knew people wanted him dead"...there's no way anyone can claim to know his state of mind.

And there's no evidence that he knew anything at all.

This is nothing more than paranoid speculation.

With absolutely no basis in fact or reality, the OP is publicly accusing these officers of participating in state-sponsored assasination. It is disgusting and wrong, and it's exactly these sorts of baseless, horrible accusations for which people have been raking the right-wing over the coals for years. It is despicable that it is now acceptible for us to sink to their low level.

it was a state sponsored assasination. my only problem with the OP's position is that I don't think they gave a flying fuck who de Menezes was.

do you know how many police shootings in the US are the result of mistaken identity? Doesn't make them "state-sponsored assassinations". If something is attributable to either stupidity or evil, stupidity is usually going to be the reason.

I am sorry that you feel compelled to defend the indefensible.

OK to your point, which is of course irrelevant. Yes our police are out of control with their guns and tasers. However, there is a difference. So far, and as far as I know, our police are not under orders to shoot to kill and without warning, or at least if they are under such orders, they have not yet carried them out.

The difference, as you well know, is that de Menezes was executed by official policy.

And had Menezes not been Menezes but rather a suicide bomber, I doubt we'd be having this conversation. What happened was due to incompetence, poor intelligence and mistaken identity.

Not only that, something tells me that if there were bombings and a threat of further terrorist action on the NYC subway, a shoot-to-kill policy would be implemented rather quickly...can you doubt it?

pinning a suspect down on the floor and then blowing his brains out? That is not a hideous fuckup, that part was on purpose and carried out as trained. Which part of that do you not get?

The mistake was who they chose to execute, not the execution. Do you see the difference?

continues unabated.

I regret having labelled this earlier as fascism and its supporters as fascist apologists, but I really don't have a good word for what our governments have become, and what the people defending this new form of authoritarian rule should be called.

on this thread is defending it. You mistake people not subscribing to your interpretation of events as "defending" it. The other interpretations being put forward on here {a} in no way "support" what occured; and {b} provide a rational explanation of what occured.

So what exactly is your interpretation? So far your contribution to this discussion has been to ridicule everyone expressing outrage and everyone interpreting the execution of de Menezes as anything other than a mistake.

So put yourself on the record here. Or perhaps just fall back to snide comments, eh?

The killing of this human being is an outrage. It makes people who have relatives who are young and brown-skinned shake with rage. I could tell you more than a dozen stories, all of which are unfortunately true, or nephews being pulled over for such things as going two blocks from their home to get a pizza, and being held for over 3 hours while the police did a "check."

Or, I could talk at length about this being an extension of the British treatment of the Irish, which in fact it is far more so than your fantasy about an Israeli connection.

I could also speak to the fact that police do overreact, even those who are highly trained. In fact, they are sad and weakly human, too -- just like people who project paranoid theories, dwell in self-righteousness, and attack anyone who does not invest in their foolishness.

that this was not 'by policy' and that my assertion that it is 'by policy' is a paranoid delusion?

that what happened was a terrible thing, which is a result of the heightened sense of fear that has infected the human community. I belief your tortured interpretation is, also.

far too much; more, you confirm what I said. Thanks. Ha-ha-ha.

There are two things here to defend: the policy and the policy's application in this incident.

Lots of people are defending the policy. I have no idea if you are or are not defending the policy as you so far have refused to clearly state your position on the policy.

Lots of people are continuing to argue that there is no policy to shoot-to-kill suspects without warning. Those people are either lying or very misinformed.

What exactly in my interpretation of events do you think is wrong?

or very misinformed." There's a good start on exactly what in your interpretation I know is wrong.

...for dealing with suspected suicide bombers. It's easy to yell "fascist!" but less easy to actually come up with a solution that keeps people from getting blown up.

I no longer have a good word for the monstrosity that is the new state.

However at least you are admitting what is going on. Now you are on to the "but what else can we do defense". Good.

We can have more courage. We can insist as a people that freedom and democracy and individual liberties are more important to us as a people than a false sense of security. Even if it means that bad people can blow us up every now and then.

Now you are on to the "but what else can we do defense".

No, I asked you a reasonable question, and you still didn't answer it. What should you do with a suspected suicide bomber on a train full of people?



We can have more courage. We can insist as a people that freedom and democracy and individual liberties are more important to us as a people than a false sense of security. Even if it means that bad people can blow us up every now and then.

Not a frequent tube passenger, are you?

"LONDON (AFP) - One of London's busiest mainline rail and subway stations was evacuated as armed police arrested two women, police said.

"Liverpool Street station has been evacuated and armed Metropolitan Police officers have made some arrests," a spokesman for British Transport Police said, adding that officers had also found some suspect packages.

The station was subsequently re-opened, transport police said."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/britainattacksstation;_ylt=Av4oOaYKHOxRMgX6jWMeh9ms0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

You see there are right ways to do things and wrong ways. We might have the same objectives, but I simply disagree with policies that are anathema to a free society.

...police do with someone who is suspected of being a suicide bomber on the tube?

were following him from the front door to the bus(!) on the bus(!!), off the bus(!!!), to the train station(!!!!) I suggest that in this case they had several opportunities to isolate and surround him and force him to surrender to their authority without first blowing his brains out. But what the heck do I know?

Seems that wasn't part of the plan.

But more to the point:

We can have more courage. We can insist as a people that freedom and democracy and individual liberties are more important to us as a people than a false sense of security. Even if it means that bad people can blow us up every now and then.

That needed to be said.

why did they panick?

not because the guy was wearing a heavy coat
not because he jumped the turnstyle
not because they suddenly ran in to him

they followd him around for some time, and then they panicked?

I think it's a bit naive to say "they panicked", there's no way of knowing what he knew and there's no way to know in what state of mind the guys who followed him were.

What we do know however is that there's a lot of foul play going on behind the scenes, and that much of this war on terror is bogus.

Because they were in radio contact with their operational command, radioed in "suspect failed to stop when challenged, and has just entered the Tube station", and the senior officer overseeing the operation radioed back something like "bloody hell...get the bugger before he can get on a train. Stop him." A series of mistakes and bad luck that culminated in tragedy.

rational.

since that's the new policy. (That's no longer a secret)
They just followed protocol; no need for panic to explain the shooting.
At worst they over-reacted by shooting him 8 times instead of just once or twice.
Or maybe that's part of the new protocol: make reeeealy sure he's dead... better safe then sorry, no?

The executioner unloaded his clip into the victim. That is the training. They have plenty of other weapons around so no worry about being momentarily unarmed. The reason why the training is to shoot into the base of the skull is to sever the spinal cord so that there is no chance of a reaction by the victim.


But the defenders of the realm here will continue with their evasions and denials and diversions as they steadfastly refuse to admit what is going on in their name.

eight shots is not a full clip for a modern semi-automatic pistol; it would be for something like a Colt M1911, but those aren't issued to UK police. It was either a Glock 17 (semi-auto, standard issue to UK police specialist firearms officers), or perhaps a Glock 18 (capable of full-auto, issued to SAS/SBS),which have a 17-23 round capacity.

Your knowledge of firearms appears as extensive as your knowledge of other subjects.

and an ad hominem


so what about them just following protocol?

Big difference.

And whatever the protocol was, I think this incident pretty obviously shows there are serious flaws in the procedure.

you are reduced to arguing trivialities and then trumphantly announcing a win on this idiotic point that somehow negates all else.

"serious flaws in the procedure"? Is that the closest you can come to comdemnation of this outrage?

My calling it a terrible and tragic error isn't enough for you, I suppose?

Go on, then, tell me how I OUGHT to feel about it.

I am unclear about your position. We all agree that the selection of de Menezes was a mistake (well except for the OP who thinks it was deliberate,) but do you think the policy is wrong?

The policy is flawed in that it was allowed to be implemented based on poor intelligence and mistaken indentification, but if implemented where there's an actual immediate threat, it seems the only way to prevent a greater loss of life. The biggest problem seems to be that it's very difficult, as the killing of Menezes demonstrates, to predict and identify an actual threat, so this seems to be excessive and based on fear and paranoia.

The likelihood of human error makes it a bad policy; London is not Jerusalem, and application of Israeli tactics and methods is likely to lead to more mistaken killings (as the London police commissioner admitted when he said 'more innocent people could be killed').

but I don't think this is justified here, in London, or even in Jerusalem. It's wrong. Plain and simple it is a policy at odds with a free people and a free society. Acceptance of such policies is part of the process of stripping us of our rights.

We can have more courage. We can insist as a people that freedom and democracy and individual liberties are more important to us as a people than a false sense of security. Even if it means that bad people can blow us up every now and then.

bad intelligence.

The least controversial thing i can say about it, is that in their eagerness to follow the precautionary principal our politicians have become paranoid, taking away our freedoms and killing innocent people while failing to protect us. All that i can expect from them is more of the same.

my bad

everything else you have said is now discredited.

:(

Not even the police are claiming he was challenged before the central decision to "stop" him was made.

from the BBC, the Guardian, Reuters, and so on, have said that the police challenged him and he failed to comply. Like this, for instance...story from this morning on Reuters: "Police shot de Menezes seven times in the head and once in the shoulder last Friday at an underground station in south London, believing he was about to blow up himself and a train. Police said he ran away when they challenged him."
link: http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-07-29T060457Z_01_SPI921837_RTRUKOC_0_BRITAIN-MEMORIAL-DEMENEZES.xml

whether there was a warning or not, but all reports that mention a central decision to stop him say it came while he was still being observed, not after being challenged and running.

just sayin'.....

you think he would kept something like that secret all to himself?

I know I sure as fuck wouldn't. I would have told my family, a few select friends, etc., all I knew, to set the record straight to the people I knew before going public and to provide protection if something happened.

So far I see know sign he did this, and your post remains nothing more than dubious speculation.

If everyone who got caught up in a clandestine operation would always "tell their family", no clandestine op would ever take place. Apparently there are people who don't tell anyone, and apparently there are people who go along for a while and later for some reason figure they want no part of it. The latter are known as whistleblowers, and some actually live to talk. But not all of them.

That Nihil posted on the UK forum:

- He came out of a building where some of the occupants were under surveillance.

- He was not a primary suspect (i.e., one of those directly watched) but would still be a person of interest - not because of his colour, nationality, religion or any other discriminatory reason but purely because he was living in the same building as the primary suspect(s).

- As a "person of interest", there is no reason to stop him straight away. He was followed and observed.

- The observer(s) called in when he was queueing for the bus to find out what procedure to follow (stop him now or carry on following).

- The response did not come back from command quick enough to prevent him boarding the bus. This is a command failure, not a failing of the officer at the scene. As a result, the preceding orders still held: observe but do not approach.

- The observer(s) boarded the bus with the suspect in order to maintain this contact. If the observer was to avoid raising the suspect's suspicions, he would not be seated very close by.

- During the bus journey, the suspect made a call on his mobile.

- Someone several seats away is unlikely to actually hear the conversation (never mind discern between different accents) but would report through the fact that the suspect has initiated the call (i.e., more information for command).

- Unless this suspect had been followed previously (unlikely given that the building had only just been linked to the recent bombings) there would be no prior knowledge of the suspect's destination.

- When the suspect disembarked (location and direction information again passed through to command) a further decision had to be made whether to continue to observe or to stop him.

- When it became apparent that the tube station was his destination, the critical decision of "what to do" was resolved: he had to be stopped.

- The "shoot to kill" / "head shot" policy has been in place for suspected suicide bombers for a long time so armed response officers would be familiar with the procedure to adopt.


From command's view, they have a nondescript "other" (an unknown to the ongoing security investigation) leaving a "building of interest", being followed as a matter of course, making a phonecall then going into a tube station. Normally this would not be a problem but when it is the day after a synchronised set of bombs failed and a fortnight after a synchronised set of bombed worked, the priorities associated with each element change - the risk of "getting it wrong" is far more severe than the risk of any upset from detaining an innocent guy.

When this innocent guy jumps the barrier and runs down an escalator towards the platform, he is suddenly not considered "innocent" any more.

In those last few seconds, the only choices were to gamble on the guy turning out to still be innocent (assuming you can catch up with him again) or to shoot to kill.

A month ago, he would have lived to regret his stupidity but, on that day, there would be very few commanders who would not have made the same decision.

As to the lack of CCTV and photographs, whilst there is an ongoing investigation and inquiry and potentially a criminal law suit if the inquiry finds any wrongdoing you're not going to see the evidence in public.

The pass for the Tube system either has to be passed through a machine or placed on a sensor, it does not give you the right to vault barriers.

He knew too much and the "killed him". What is he supposed to know?

There are hundreds if not thousands of people who live in that area. Why did they choose HIM as a "person of interest"? Why don't they follow and chase every person who leaves that area and takes public transportation?

This just doesn't make sense...

Also, your timeline is flawed.

One problem being that he DID NOT JUMP THE BARRIER!

Not because he lived in the same area but because he lived in the same building.

Why didn't they follow everyone who left the building? Perhaps they did, perhaps Charles de Menezes was the only one who boarded public transport, we don't know.

And according to the BBC at least one eyewitness claims to have seen him vault the barrier.

Continues. Grows. Blossoms.

Beware citizens, beware.

soon you will be labelled a fool, a paranoid, delusional, a jew-hater.

Best to wait for the authorities to get their story in order and then they can tell us how to think about this little incident.

Maybe during the course of his electrician work he stumbled upon explosives planted in the tube and they knew he found them.

What did he know?

This is a mere flame-war.