Aug 16, 2005
Death in London
On the morning of 22 July, an innocent young man, a Brazilian electrician named Jean Charles de Menezes, was shot dead by London police who believed that he might be a suicide bomber. Soon after, fragments of 'information' began to circulate. We were, over the following days, given a picture of a dreadful tragedy, but one that we had to understand in the context of heightened security following the London bombing of 7 July and attempted bombs of 21 July.
Those who voiced their fears of a shoot-to-kill policy were told firmly: the shooting had been necessary. Or they were shouted down: what sort of people would want to have suicide bombers blowing themselves up while police fretted over human rights? What sort of people would risk undermining the morale and effectiveness of our police and security forces at a time like this?
As it soon turned out, Menezes was innocent (although a few despicable voices continued to question that after the police had made it quite clear that he was not a terrorist or in any way connected to terrorists) - but that, we had to understand, was not the point. His own actions had inadvertently combined to make police believe that he was a threat and that they had no choice but to kill him. They had been forced to make a terrible, rapid decision on the basis of their observations and intelligence.
Some of what we were told in the early stages was merely misleading. Menezes had left a building that was under surveillance because of documents left in one of the failed suicide bombers' rucksacks. (What was he doing sharing a house with suspected terrorists if he were innocent?) It took rather longer to emerge that this building was a block of several flats and that he had left it from a communal entrance. It also took a while to emerge that the police had let their quarry take a ride on a bus for some distance before arriving at Stockwell tube station, a curious detail. Some of us were already wondering: why did they wait so long before challenging him?
But it is now emerging that much of what was reported at the time was much worse than misleading: key points that supported and justified the police's decision to shoot Jean Charles de Menezes are now emerging as entirely incorrect. At the very least, the police failed to contradict those false reports. At the very worst, we have to wonder, did they deliberately lie?
1. Contrary to widespread reports that were not questioned until considerably later, Menezes was not wearing a bulky coat, strange on a summer morning, which might have been concealing a bomb. He was wearing a light denim jacket. Nor was he carrying anything that could have contained a bomb.
2. He did not run from the police. He did not jump over a barrier into the station. He used an electronic pass card quite normally to go through. He walked down the stairs. He paused to pick up a free newspaper. Then, he probably speeded up to a run on seeing his train pulling into the station. This perfectly normal action probably, finally, sealed his fate.
3. He did not fail to stop when challenged by police. He was never challenged by the police. All of the police involved were in plain clothes. And as yet it seems that there has been no witness who heard any police officer identify themselves to him.
In fact, he had already quietly boarded the train and sat down when an officer or officers followed him aboard and shot him in the head at point blank range. He never had any idea that he was being followed. He probably never had time to understand what was happening to him.
These are not mere speculations of bloggers or of journalists. This is what is now emerging from the police's own investigation into Menezes' death. (Also here, with a photograph readers may find disturbing, but which shows the denim jacket.)
There is much more, no doubt, to come. Perhaps this time around bloggers and journalists alike won't be quite so quick to jump to conclusions. Perhaps we can all hold off a while until we know more, before pronouncing what punishments should now be visited upon the police. (I am not very optimistic that such restraint is in fact likely to be shown.)
At some point on that morning, police officers do indeed appear to have made the decision that this young man was a dangerous terrorist. I believe that they panicked; I do not believe that it was a cold-blooded 'execution'. But all of the so-called facts that were offered to justify their decision – to present it as rational, based on objective criteria, a necessary evil - are melting away.
What were the real reasons? And is there anything to be said that can reassure young, dark-skinned men that they can trust the London police in future?
Those who voiced their fears of a shoot-to-kill policy were told firmly: the shooting had been necessary. Or they were shouted down: what sort of people would want to have suicide bombers blowing themselves up while police fretted over human rights? What sort of people would risk undermining the morale and effectiveness of our police and security forces at a time like this?
As it soon turned out, Menezes was innocent (although a few despicable voices continued to question that after the police had made it quite clear that he was not a terrorist or in any way connected to terrorists) - but that, we had to understand, was not the point. His own actions had inadvertently combined to make police believe that he was a threat and that they had no choice but to kill him. They had been forced to make a terrible, rapid decision on the basis of their observations and intelligence.
Some of what we were told in the early stages was merely misleading. Menezes had left a building that was under surveillance because of documents left in one of the failed suicide bombers' rucksacks. (What was he doing sharing a house with suspected terrorists if he were innocent?) It took rather longer to emerge that this building was a block of several flats and that he had left it from a communal entrance. It also took a while to emerge that the police had let their quarry take a ride on a bus for some distance before arriving at Stockwell tube station, a curious detail. Some of us were already wondering: why did they wait so long before challenging him?
But it is now emerging that much of what was reported at the time was much worse than misleading: key points that supported and justified the police's decision to shoot Jean Charles de Menezes are now emerging as entirely incorrect. At the very least, the police failed to contradict those false reports. At the very worst, we have to wonder, did they deliberately lie?
1. Contrary to widespread reports that were not questioned until considerably later, Menezes was not wearing a bulky coat, strange on a summer morning, which might have been concealing a bomb. He was wearing a light denim jacket. Nor was he carrying anything that could have contained a bomb.
2. He did not run from the police. He did not jump over a barrier into the station. He used an electronic pass card quite normally to go through. He walked down the stairs. He paused to pick up a free newspaper. Then, he probably speeded up to a run on seeing his train pulling into the station. This perfectly normal action probably, finally, sealed his fate.
3. He did not fail to stop when challenged by police. He was never challenged by the police. All of the police involved were in plain clothes. And as yet it seems that there has been no witness who heard any police officer identify themselves to him.
In fact, he had already quietly boarded the train and sat down when an officer or officers followed him aboard and shot him in the head at point blank range. He never had any idea that he was being followed. He probably never had time to understand what was happening to him.
These are not mere speculations of bloggers or of journalists. This is what is now emerging from the police's own investigation into Menezes' death. (Also here, with a photograph readers may find disturbing, but which shows the denim jacket.)
There is much more, no doubt, to come. Perhaps this time around bloggers and journalists alike won't be quite so quick to jump to conclusions. Perhaps we can all hold off a while until we know more, before pronouncing what punishments should now be visited upon the police. (I am not very optimistic that such restraint is in fact likely to be shown.)
At some point on that morning, police officers do indeed appear to have made the decision that this young man was a dangerous terrorist. I believe that they panicked; I do not believe that it was a cold-blooded 'execution'. But all of the so-called facts that were offered to justify their decision – to present it as rational, based on objective criteria, a necessary evil - are melting away.
What were the real reasons? And is there anything to be said that can reassure young, dark-skinned men that they can trust the London police in future?