Police officer who shot innocent man dead on holiday paid for by Met Police

[edam]

BBC Online is saying the police officers who shot Jean Menendes, the innocent man killed in Stockwell, are on holiday at our expense.

"The officers have been moved to non-firearm duties for the duration of the IPCC probe, expected to take several months.

A Scotland Yard spokesman said: "An officer has had a break paid for by the Metropolitan Police, authorised by the commissioner, to allow him to take his wife and family away from the family home."

One of the other officers is already on a family holiday."

Full story here

Wonder what everyone thinks? I can see why they are on leave - but not sure Met (we) should be paying for the holiday itself. Wonder if the Met, or the Home Office, will be contributing to the man's funeral expenses - it won't be cheap to repatriate his body to Brazil. Or his father's cancer treatment - apparently he was sending money home to help his family. If we are paying for the holiday, don't we equally have an obligation to pay funeral expenses?

i really dislike this kind of blame game that is being played. What happened at stockwell is a consequence of the situation we all currently find ourselves living in. That doesn't mean that I think what happened is right but it does mean that you can't just name any one person and say that is their fault and thats it.

QoQ - no, why should I have a problem with you? Actually I agree with you on previous threads and you can be quite funny, love your website. I just disagree strongly with you on this issue. I think your Australian analogy was a bit barmy that's all.

"Actually I agree with you on previous threads and you can be quite funny, love your website. "

hmm now I'm intrigued - you've definitely started using a new name then haven't you?

Because I don't recall agreeing with you before (and couldn't find anything in the limited archived results when I searched your name.......)

I guess it was just that last comment you made to me - and another on a different thread related to the Terrorist attacks made me think someone was out to get me..........

What's new

oh and I've just realised why my Australian anology made no sense.......I DID start a thread about that news article a while back......but on a different site

Of course Jean Menendes wouldn't have been killed if it weren't for the terrorists. But I think we have to be careful not to say 'it was the terrorists fault, what's done is done'. We (well, someone, preferably with enough openess for us to see what decisions are being made in our names) need to examine all the steps that led up to the shooting carefully and examine what went wrong.

Btw, official investigators are saying the Home Office was wrong to call him an illegal immigrant. They are saying wait for their investigation. One thing that has come out is that he had indefinite leave to remain in his passport but Home Office somehow claimed this didn't apply - but investigators saying Home Office should shut up until all facts are established.

No, I never said what's done is done, a proper investigation is essential BUT ultimately no terrorists, no shooting.

"No, I never said what's done is done, a proper investigation is essential BUT ultimately no terrorists, no shooting."

I'm not sure we can say that with 100% confidence, look at Harry Stanley (spelling)....

edam. Are you in favour of the shoot-to-kill policy for suspected suicide bombers?

And if not, what's the alternative? Without the benefit of hindsight...

Hmm have been thinking about this and no, I'm not. No doubt that will bring howls of outrage from many, but I think it falls into the category of 'we must be seen to be doing something'. Along with ID cards and all the other headline-grabbing rubbish proposals that the authorities come up with to convince they are doing something to protect us.

It's all very well to say 'without the benefit of hindsight' but you can't ignore how this theorectical necessity has worked in practice. Real life has shown it isn't actually useful or necessary, has it? One innocent man dead - and his name blackened, shamfully - four alleged suicide bombers arrested alive.As well as being extremely dangerous, in practical and political terms. The use of deadly force by the authorities has to be kept within very strict limits, or you end up with dictatorship. That's just the nature of governments, they inevitably accrue more and more power over the public unless we stop them. History shows us that again and again.

Pragmatically, how often would it actually be the case that a soldier or a police officer was geniunely faced with the immediate danger of a suicide bomber primed to explode? Compared to the likelihood of them facing someone of whom they are suspicious, rightly or wrongly?

The security services didn't actually prevent the London bombings. So this policy wasn't a ha'porth of use to anyone. Fortunately they have managed to arrest the suspects. But the big lesson for me has been that we are all sitting ducks, effectively - there seems to be nothing the security services can do to actually prevent nutters exploding bombs in public places in the first place. Shoot to kill is a useful distraction. And while we are debating that, we aren't asking why our security services didn't have these bombers on their radar. I'm not suggesting that the security services should be 100 per cent effective (although that would be nice), just that the real answer must be a. to look at the failures of intelligence and address the shortcomings there and b. to look at the risks from radical extremists and try to address them too. Why do people want to kill us, and what can we do to win hearts and minds among young Muslim men?

I'm anti ID cards, but pro shoot to kill policy staying in place.

I'm concerned by the fact that he got as far as the underground station when he had been followed from his flat. Ideally he should have been stopped before he got that far. Were the police waiting for the order/authorisation to shoot? Was it an 11th hour decision? Were the police unable to identify themselves as armed police to try to get him to stop because he was walking on a busy pavement and may, if he had been a suicide bomber, have detonated his explosives thus killing those on the pavement around him.

I feel desparately sorry for the young man who spent his last moments in terror and pain. I feel for his family and particularly his mother. My son, though an about-to-be-born baby, struggled in his final moments of life and died wrongfully, by the actions of others, in a pool of meconium.

What to say on an alternative to a shoot-to-kill policy? My own feeling is that we have a police force who, by and large, are exemplary. In many countries in the world a visit to the police station for 'questioning' would entail extortion, no right to legal representation and possibly even torture. Many people in the world 'disappear' after being picked up by the police.

I think it is the contrast between our historically 'genteel' policing ( and yes, I've met some bad 'uns in my time, but I'm talking in general) and the policing of recent days which has been so shocking. In many countries in the world, an innocent man being killed by armed police would not even make the news, especially if the media were in thrall of a dictator.

I support the shoot-to-kill policy if it is in response to good intelligence. And here we are back to our old friensd hindsight again.

I agree with Edam. And the attempts to slander him are deeply suspect. He was apparently allowed back in after visiting his family just a few weeks before he was shot. How could someone 'illegal' manage that?

I don't support attempts to slander this man. But I think, sadly, this kind of thing is inevitable - obviously intelligence should always be perfect, the police should always perform at 110%, people who aren't criminals should behave perfectly, people who are criminals should be the only ones who look suspicious, etc.

BUT - when there are people who are willing to blow themselves up on public transport in this country, there has to be a level of force which can protect the majority of people.

In future, what if the police do have good intelligence re another suicide bomber? Should they ask him nicely to put the bomb down and come in for questioning? Perhaps offer him a nice cup of tea?

Tazers. And lets be honest, if a bomber is already in situ then there's not much anyone can do. If he's on route as Menendes was thought to be, then no irrevocable damage should they make a mistake.

Given the state of our immigration services at the moment monkeytrousers, I'd say fairly easily.

I know of a couple of au-pairs who've gone home for weddings etc. on expired visas and come back to the UK with no problems.

sorry if I repeat here (haven't read all)... but I need to get this off my chest - and I had an unexpected arguement about this whole issue the other day.

I am not blaming the men who shot him (although why it needed so many bullets is a possible query?)

I question the 'INTELLIGENCE'...

I cannot sit in 'polite' RL discussions simply glossing over the major incident in terms of 'well he shouldn't have run away- or had an expired visa'.

Killing anyone should NEVER be excused. (IMHO)

I know this is only speculation but

"Were the police unable to identify themselves as armed police to try to get him to stop because he was walking on a busy pavement and may, if he had been a suicide bomber, have detonated his explosives thus killing those on the pavement around him"

If this is the case, then surely he would have had a chance while running from the entrance to the station down to the train (don't know Stockwell station, but all the underground stations I've been in have been a reasonable distance to the platform) to detonate his bomb while being chased - if as we're frequently told it's "THAT" easy to detonate themselves that chase time would have been ample (and no I don't buy the "he would have wanted to take as many people with him as possible" line)

But surely, QOQ, strapping a bomb onto yourself is for the sole intention of killing as many others as possible? If not, wouldn't suicide bombers explode themselves in empty spaces?

yes but usualy they go for 'enclosed' spaces (although doesn't seem to make much difference in Iraq and Israel - any old place will do) - which doesn't nessecarily mean a 'train' - inside a building would cause just as much chaos - and I'm afraid I don't belive that the "split second" it apparently takes to detonate oneself wasn't available before being pinned down by police - just don't see how they could have moved faster than a suicide bomber could have blown himself up.

I see. What you're saying is that if he had been a suicide bomber he would have blown himself up at the earliest opportunity after he realised he was being chased by armed police.

I still can't understand why the police acted as they did. I'm 100% sure they didn't do this for a laugh or because they thought it might be the right guy - did they?

Yes - that's exactly what I'm trying to say (OMG better go sit down someone actually understood me )

I just can't see a suicide bomber trying to run away from armed police knowing that he could make himself a 'martyr' by killing himself (even if it meant taking "slightly" fewer with him) rather than not succeeding in his "mission" at all by letting the police kill him (which I presume a suicide bomber would know would happen)

Oh goodness, I'm waffling again - they should make a free online 'waffle sorter' to make sense of what I write and put it so other people understand what I'm saying

Mini Hijack

Hunk we need the bat on the I might be in labour thread

Sorry, carry on

Tough call for the police though isn't it? And, without wishing to dwell on my dead baby, I feel the same towards the police who killed that young man as I do towards the doctors and midwives who killed my child. They did what they felt was right at the time. Totally wrong, with hindsight, but they set out on that day to do the right thing. And they will live with their mistakes for the rest of their lives.