Menezes officers 'not at fault'

[Space05us]

The police did nothing "wrong or unreasonable" on the day that Jean Charles de Menezes was killed, the senior officer in charge has said.

But Deputy Assistant Commissioner Cressida Dick did tell his inquest she felt "terrible" about what happened.

Mr de Menezes, 27, was shot after being mistaken for a terror suspect in 2005.

Ms Dick said his behaviour on the day had contributed to that mistake, but a spokesman for his family said her comments were "insulting".

Ms Dick, who was designated officer for Operation Kratos - the Metropolitan Police's codename for special tactics to deal with a suicide bomber - was asked by Nicholas Hilliard, QC for the coroner: "What went wrong?"

'Terrible circumstances'

She replied: "One thing that clearly went wrong was that we didn't manage as a nation to prevent those attacks.

"Mr de Menezes was a victim of terrible and extraordinary circumstances that day and afterwards.

"He was extremely unfortunate to live in the same block as Hussain Osman, desperately unfortunate to look very like Hussain Osman, and the things he did in all innocence, the way he behaved getting on and off the bus, contributed to our assessment - my assessment - of him as a bomber.

"But if you are asking me did we do anything wrong or unreasonable, then I don't think we did."

Ms Dick was asked how she felt when she heard that the wrong man had been killed.

Jean Charles de Menezes's mother and brother arrive at the inquest

"Terrible. It was a terrible thing to happen," she answered, choking back tears.

"I set out that morning to protect the people of London and to save people, and the last thing I wanted to do is have an innocent person shot.

"But that is what happened and I regret it deeply."

The coroner, Sir Michael Wright, was told by Ms Dick that between 2003 and 2007 she was involved in overseeing serious firearms operations "literally on a daily basis".

"I think I probably had the highest volume under my command by far of the most high risk and complex firearms operations," she said.

Victim's mother

On 22 July 2005 Mr de Menezes, an innocent electrician, was shot seven times in the head at close range by two specialist officers after he got on a train at Stockwell Tube station in south London.

Officers had suspected he was failed suicide bomber Hussain Osman. Osman and three others tried to attack transport in London on 21 July 2005.

For the first time during the inquest, Mr de Menezes's mother was in court to hear evidence given about her son's death.



Otone de Menezes, 63, flew into Britain from Brazil with her older son, Giovani de Menezes, 36, on Friday, but broke down and had to leave the courtroom during Ms Dick's testimony.

As well as hearing from Ms Dick, over the coming weeks Mrs de Menezes will hear evidence from the two officers who shot her son - known only as C1 and C2.

Last week Det Ch Supt Jon Boutcher told the inquest jury: "I cannot see anything we could have done that would have changed the course of the tragedy of Mr de Menezes."

He also admitted he could not rule out someone being killed in a similar situation again.

A spokesman for the Justice4Jean campaign said: "It has been highly alarming and extremely insulting for the bereaved Menezes family to hear evidence at the inquest from senior officers in the Metropolitan Police that they did nothing wrong and that a similar tragedy could happen again.

"This continued rebuttal of any wrongdoing on their part only adds to the shameful perception that the Metropolitan Police has no regrets and shows no remorse."

Britain

[OneFootInTheGrave]

UK

[TheStinger]

What so the police are supposed to say of course nothing will ever go wrong again, it was a tragic mistake however the blame lies with the ****ers who go onto trains and blow themselves up.

[Dauphin]

Aside from answering the question of whether the police did anything wrong or unreasonable (it's not Dick's place to say), I don't see the problem.

[Krill]

As it's an inquest, could she have refused to answer that question, or would she have been forced to answer regardless of whether she qwanted to or not?

[TheStinger]

mistakes were made primarily in the identication of the him as a suspected suicide bomber, however once that ID is made what are the officers in charge supposed to do, 2nd guess that and hope the intel guy was wrong.

If there had been no bombs in London in July 2005 he would still be alive

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Krill
As it's an inquest, could she have refused to answer that question, or would she have been forced to answer regardless of whether she qwanted to or not?

She should really only be answering factual questions - this is what we did, and this is what the rulebook says/this is what standard practice is. Whether she believes they did nothing wrong is neither here nor there.

It's a question of relevance more than refusal to answer.

[Krill]

OK. I don't understand anything about inquests, is all. thatnks for the info

[OneFootInTheGrave]

well if they shot him and killed accidentaly, OK... but 7 shots in the head from point blank and not be at fault...

just for reference

Three surveillance officers, 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 passengers between Menezes and himself. When the firearms officers arrived on the platform, Hotel 3 moved to the door, blocked it from closing with his left foot, and shouted 'He's here!' to identify the suspect's location.

The firearms officers boarded the train and it was initially claimed they challenged the suspect, though later report indicates he was not challenged.[11] 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, his body was straight and not in a natural sitting position. Hotel 3 heard a shot close to his ear, and was dragged away onto the floor of the carriage. He 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.[12] Two officers fired a total of eleven shots according to the number of empty shell casings found on the floor of the train afterwards. Menezes was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder at close range, and died at the scene. An eyewitness later said that the eleven shots were fired over a thirty second period, at three second intervals.[13] A separate witness reported hearing five shots, followed at an interval by several more shots.[14] It later emerged that hollow point bullets had been employed and a senior police source said that Menezes' body had been "unrecognisable." The bullets are illegal in warfare, but are widely used in law enforcement where it may often be necessary to quickly stop an armed assailant.

[TheStinger]

so 1 shot in the head is ok, but not 7.

They meant to kill him that is not in dispute, it was an accident in the sense that they were shooting at somone else and missed, they thought(wrongly) but genuinely that he was a suicide bomber

[OneFootInTheGrave]

1 shot from the distance - accident, as they might as well aimed somewhere else...

7 shots from close up, when they had him, could have stripped him naked in seconds, tied his hands behind his back, etc, etc... as they usually do...

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, his body was straight and not in a natural sitting position.

he was already being restrained before being executed... now if this is not a conspiracy to kill some Brazilian electrician with an expired visa... it certainly is a case of short nerves in action by firearms officers - don't come clearer than this one...

do you want this officer arresting you in the future? Well for sure if someone does not convict him (them? ) well he just as well might...

[TheStinger]

right murder law lesson number one,

To prove that the police offcier unlawfully killed him the prosecution would have to prove that the officer in question did not hold a genuine belief that Menezes was a suicide bomber and was a threat to the people on the train.

In the circumstances of that day with the largest police operation ever in the Uk underway to catch the failed suicide bombers of the day before and the officer in question having been told a suspected suicide bomber had just got on board a train, can you please tell me how you prove beyond reasonable doubt he didn't hold that belief.

further the instructions in shooting suspected suicide bomber is that you have to incapacitate them so that they no longer have any ability to trigger a bomb, the only way to make sure of that is to ensure instant brain death.

Now this is all very unpleasnat and there are grounds for blaming the police service as a whole for the **** ups, but if you were the armed officer in that situation what would you do?.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by TheStinger
right murder law lesson number one,

To prove that the police offcier unlawfully killed him the prosecution would have to prove that the officer in question did not hold a genuine belief that Menezes was a suicide bomber and was a threat to the people on the train.

that is impossible

In the circumstances of that day with the largest police operation ever in the Uk underway to catch the failed suicide bombers of the day before and the officer in question having been told a suspected suicide bomber had just got on board a train, can you please tell me how you prove beyond reasonable doubt he didn't hold that belief.

shows the shortcomings of the law

further the instructions in shooting suspected suicide bomber is that you have to incapacitate them so that they no longer have any ability to trigger a bomb, the only way to make sure of that is to ensure instant brain death.

Now this is all very unpleasnat and there are grounds for blaming the police service as a whole for the **** ups, but if you were the armed officer in that situation what would you do?.

given what was done, and the circumstances, it is pretty clear that they could have incapacitated him differently... I am pretty sure there are methods other than point blank in the head, since you are already >restraining< him.... He would have blown up already if he could have...

Second - not 1 point blank - but 7 - well the law is poor there if there is no coverage for "disproportionate use of force"... Being a firearms officer is a tough job, but do you not want to hold them to standards (in court at least when they obviously don't do at work) of some kind?

While he is a police officer and not some causal murderer, I sure would not want him in jail, but off that type of work (with necessary support, whatever that might mean), and clear message that he was guilty of excessive use of force, and that they will at least pretend to work on techniques of "not to be killing people on sight" in case there is an emergency of some sort... That sounds reasonable to me, or at least something that one would expect given such an extreme case of "short nerves" and "wrong judgement" in a tough situation...

[Dauphin]

Are you complaining that the police methods are faulty, or that the officers are at fault, or both?

I say that because this case makes me think that the shooting officers did what they were supposed to, according to training. Therefore the problem, in my mind, is in the correct identification of a suspect and the methods used for apprehension.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Well, not I am not familiar with the training, but I assume they need to shoot if this is the last recourse to "save life" ie in this case protect people on the train (and themselves) from being blown up.

So (assuming) that this is the training, this is OK... However engaging with the suspect, restraining him, followed by point blank in the head... I see plenty of problems with that, and I highly doubt they train them like that... Additional problem is 7 shots in addition to the "incapacitating" one, just giving more circumstantial (or obvious) evidence that they used excessive force...

But problem #1 is that since they were already physically restraining him - why did they not continue till the end as there were more than one of them at the scene. Pretty clear to me is that once they got to him he would have blown up already... after all they did not incapacitate him from the distance while he was running towards the "target" or train... but while he was already in there, and they caught up with him... in any case he had plenty of time to blow if he had some sort of device tied to him or similar... before they did the execution...

makes a pretty clear case of abuse of power under "short nerves" to me... highly doubt that this is what they are trained for... so clearly officers at fault... not going into the system that did not adequately support them there either as this is a different topic...