Talk:Jean Charles de Menezes/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Latest development

Latest development posted at the news section of the Brazil Portal, if it should interest. Regards, Redux 01:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

pt:Universidade de São Paulo

'Disputed' facts and events

I just feel that there is something seriously misleading about titling like this. First, we aren't stating WHO is disputing what events and facts. Once the leaked documents emerged, they appear to have quickly superseded the previous account. The current verbage seems to suggest there is an on going, or at least notably heated argument over which version was accurate, which there is/was not. --Fangz 01:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree PizzaMargherita 07:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Officers mistook him for bombing suspect?

The second sentence of the article claims that the officers who killed de Menzes mistook him for one of the attempted bombing suspects. Is there any reference for that claim (which follows verbatim)?

Menezes was shot and killed at Stockwell tube station on the London Underground by unnamed Metropolitan Police officers, who had mistaken him for a suspect in the previous day's failed bombings.

This claim is not made elsewhere in the article. Given that that even the Metropolitan Police have given contradictory statements as to whether officers believed de Menezes to be an existing suspect, and that we do not even know the identity of the officers who actually shot him let alone what their thoughts were at the time, I believe this claim should be removed from the first paragraph.

If there is a source which makes this claim, IMO it should be moved to Jean_Charles_de_Menezes#Pursuit_and_shooting, probably with other views on this matter.

--Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 05:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they monitored his family's conversations in Portuguese, and the very well trained spy agents concluded that they spoke Arabic and the official translation of the conversations from Arabic into English provided conclusive evidence that they were going to bomb the train.--tequendamia 05:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Is this documented? PizzaMargherita 07:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

See above at Introduction, where this was already discussed in much depth... KWH 06:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I just read all the archives and I don't think a consensus was reached on whether the beliefs of the officers who shot him should be included, and, more crucially, no one there has given a single reference for the claim, "who had mistaken him for a suspect in the previous day's failed bombings".

IMO we shouldn't be stating as fact the intentions of an individual involved in a suspected crime (especially in the first paragraph and without any reference to someoene even expressing the claim as their opinion), as we really have no idea what the their intentions were (especially as the individuals have not given any indication of what happened or even released their names).

I wouldn't have a problem with stating different views on this in a disputed facts section, but, as it stands, I believe it is not WP:NPOV and is second guessing the criminal investigation and any future prosecutions. For instance, by assuming the truth of this factoid (that they thought he was one of the suspects from the previous day), many would consider it reasonable to assume that there was a necessary level of recklessness or negligence on the part of the officers in order to secure a criminal conviction at least for manslaughter (because De Menzes didn't look like any of the suspects).

Is it fair for us to use weasel words in the second sentence of a controversial article to imply that someone who does not (and possibly is not allowed to) defend themselves has committed manslaughter or murder?

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 14:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This seems to depend very much on the meaning you are applying to the words. The officers who set the chain of events in motion were the plainclothes officers on the bus. ("At some point during this journey, the pursuing officers contacted Gold Command, and reported that Menezes potentially matched the description of two of the previous day's suspects, including Osman Hussain.") These officers then followed him into the station and pointed him out to the firearms officers who arrived. The firearms officers shot him. You are correct that we do not know the state of mind of the firearms officers, but they presumably would not have shot Menezes if the plainclothes officers hadn't identified him. So is it reasonable to say, for reason of brevity in an introduction, that a team of officers does an action collectively? Shall we say of a sports team that the team won the game, or shall we say that these several players won the game, a few others sat on the bench, and a few others weren't present? I'm open to another wording as long as it's suitably brief. Perhaps:

"Menezes was shot and killed at Stockwell tube station on the London Underground by unnamed Metropolitan Police officers, after he was mistaken for a suspect in the previous day's failed bombings."

(And please note: I was defending the exact same view on this text as you, Joe, back in August 2005 before the leaked IPCC report came out with further details) KWH 02:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I admit I haven't read the leaked IPCC report (and only have a vague idea about its contents) so maybe I should. I brought this up, because, despite not liking to get into arguments over controversial articles, seeing this paragraph has been annoying since August and it still hasn't changed. Regardless of the contents of the report (which, of course, shouldn't be taken as gospel, especially as it was a leak of a work in progress), it seems clear that that it would not be right to say he was "shot by officers who mistook him for" (as the who clause can only refer to the shooters and "mistook for" is defined as "to recognise someone/sthg as someoene sthg/else" and "recognise" means "to perceive with the senses as something/someoene else based on past experience"), so I've changed the wording to what you suggested.

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 22:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I am surprised that little or no mention is made of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner's false and misleading statements in the immediate aftermath of the killing (i.e. that day), and of his attempt to block any investigation of it by the relevant authorities. Could someone knowledgeable add some such comment?

Pete (a Northern Irishman in Australia)

Inaccuracy in biography section

According to a statement by the British Home Office, he did not apply for an extension, and was living illegally in the UK after that time.

This account is both inaccurate and biased.

I remember quite vividly, although I cannot get hold of the sources, that the Home Office said that the Home Office stamp that Jean Charles de Menezes had on his passport was not in use by the Home Office at the time, thus implying that there was a possibility that he was living in the UK without a valid visa.

I also remember that the IPCC complained about the timing and the nature of this statement from the Home Office, which was uncalled for and not relevant. I think it would be nice to add these very meaningful details, and either way to support this section with references. Can you please help me find them? Thanks. PizzaMargherita 19:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I got them. I was only partially correct, but still I think the current wording in the article is not ideal.

• Brazilian's visa expired in 2003
• Home Office slated over shot Brazilian

PizzaMargherita 07:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm adding this BBC link for reference. It seems he had been in Ireland and would therefore have been entitled to a three month extension. According to the BBC, this would - at the earliest - have expired the day after he was shot. So, in fact, he was in the UK legally. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 19:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Rape Allegations

I have heard that the rape case has now been closed, however as far as i am aware the DNA sample that was requested by the police was never provided by the family, there are only two reasons i can think the case has been closed, that he was in fact the rapist or another person was caught and charged with the rape. As this was a pre existing alligation which only came to light after the victim saw the pictures of him in the media, its not possible that they were simply made up, the polic had evidence and genetic matierial collected at the time of the rape, so whats going on here??? Was Mr De Menezes a rapist???? —This unsigned comment was added by 82.39.134.72 (talk • contribs) .

All the sources I can find online don't indicate that the case is closed, but is still under investigation. KWH 02:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Case is closed and Mr de Menezes was cleared of all rape allegations [1]. And such allegations were very 'convenient' so start with, weren't they?!? Slander, slander, slander... I can almost see some chubby fingers crossed, hoping that the allegations would stick.

Now that the allegations have been thoroughly disproved, I wonder whether they justify a separate section (complete with details as to the supposed circumstances of the "rape".) Should it be reduced to just a couple of sentences in another section (possibly "An innocent man"?). Vilĉjo 22:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Clearly a cynical attempt to smear de Menezes. Not content to have taken his life, the police were determined to tarnish his name as well. Sickening. Guv2006 11:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Roman Catholic

Why is this category relevant? Why don't we add a "people with dark hair" category then? Besides, do we want to build a database of all Roman catholics? I think somebody tried to do the same with jews in the past and it was decided that it wasn't a nice thing to do. PizzaMargherita 07:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The relevance is that de Menezes was shot because the London Police (incorrectly) believed that he was a Muslim terrorist performing an attack on Britain. Being a Roman Catholic is strong evidence of his innocence.

It is dangerous living in a country that is fighting a religious war (see 9/11, invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan). It was deadly for de Menezes to live in the same building as sinners. Murder (and treason) is a major sin. Andrew Swallow (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Mark Whitby

Anyone else aware that he managed to get "eyewitness" spots on all the major channels, and yet talked a load of utter crap.

Some claim that the unreliable "eye witnesses" were plants employed to spread misinformation. On the other hand, and I think it’s more likely, that the witnesses misidentified various plane clothes police officers as the Terrorist. Witnesses saw an ordinary passenger, Jean Charles, killed by a terrified police officer who looked like a cornered rabbit, who had sprinted over ticket turnstiles in his bulky jacket/bullet-proof vest. Diamond Dave 19/09/2006 14:19 UT

Number of Shots

Why does the article quote two random sources stating that there were two separate and distinct sets of gunfire? This does not accord with the majority of the eye-witness accounts (including my own). Most witnesses are quoted in the newspapers are saying there were between 5 and 8 shots. The majority don't talk about two separate bursts, so why refer to this in the main article? In my view this is biased towards making out some case for a hidden agenda and cover-up.

Hi anonymos. There were 11 shots according to several sources citing the leaked documents: "The documents say that a post-mortem examination showed Mr Menezes had been shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder, but that three other bullets had missed him."[2][3]EyesAllMine 13:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Found one more [4]

That's not disputed. What is though, is giving weight to one witness statement saying that the shots took place over a 30 second period when not one other witness appears to say the same thing. I don't see why that should be given any more weight that the evidence of the 30+ other witnesses.

Criticism of Justice4Jean

I've noticed that any criticism of Justice4Jean seems to get removed by anonymous IPs every few months, most recently 9 March: [5] Might keep an eye out for that in the future. KWH 05:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The "justice4jean" campaign. How efficient and encouraging has the campaign been? The j4j campaign website seldom gets up-dated - not since the campaign 22 January "6 months Vigil". Would-be campaign supporters repeatedly report that telephone calls are not returned and that various supportive requests have fallen on deaf ears. And that regular meetings have not been called by core justice4jean members so that matters can be discussed, campaign responsibilities more adequately shared, and a more broad based supportive campaign ethos is established. Is the justice4jean campaign in the tight grip of a group of relatively elite inward looking activist "operatives". Would be gratifying to be proved wrong!!

I don't really accept the rebuttle (in the indented paragraph that immediately follows this one) of some of the criticisms cited above. Having had repeated direct contact with a number of J4J campaigners and from my own attempted involvement, the campaign has had very serious shortcomings. There simply have not been (during the first half of 2006) regular meetings (I mean "regular" and "open" meetings) to enable discussion, and to promote collective commitments and these shortcomings are too serious to be air-brushed away by claims that things have been (and usually are) a bit disorganised in political criminal justice campaigns - for certain there are some very experienced political acivists connected with this campaign who appear to have deliberately not been as outgoing as they ought to have been, hence the lack of regular and necessary meetings. Would be J4J campaigners eager to engage more fully with this campaign have privately expressed repeated disppointment that ongoing opportunities to engage collectively were not materialising. These latter would certainly include a very small group of J4J campaigners who have worked very hard throughout the whole post 22 July '05 period to establish and safeguard the Stockwell Station J4J shrine. As an experienced activist in relation to criminal justice system campaigns since the early 1970's I have been astonished by the way the J4J campaign proceeded. I do not seek to suggest that the immediate family and closest friends of Jean Charles de Menezes as being at fault, I would draw a clear distinction between those personally burdened and deeply traumatise folk and the J4J core "political activists".

With the greatest respect to KWH, another way of looking at this is that all campaigns are a bit disorganised, which is a different POV from that which accuses people of being elitist. As someone who has been involved in the Justice4Jean campaign, I can confirm that it is true that work has fallen on a relatively small number of people - but that is always what happens in these type of campaigns, the more so when Jean's relatives in London are working all hours they can to survive. In terms of decision-making, everything the campaign does has to be checked with both Jean's cousins in London and his family in Brazil. It was Jean's cousin Alex who decided, for example, that he wanted to march alongside the family of the young man who was shot and wounded in the raid in Forest Gate, when a march was called by local groups on 18 June.

I can confirm that the Justice4Jean website has been completely overhauled and will be relaunched before 22 July, and there is a public meeting on the first anniversary of Jean's death at Friends Meeting House on Euston Rd, London NW1

The new Justice 4 Jean website is now up and running

Conspiracy Theories

It has been said that Menezes was an electrician on the London Underground and had witnessed the placing of the bombs underneath the carriages. Who was his employer? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.75.243.78 (talk • contribs) .

With the corpus of evidence already available indicating criminal behaviour of the police at all levels, is it worth spending any time chasing ghosts? PizzaMargherita 06:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

According to [6] he was working as an electrician, and had been called out to fix a broken fire alarm. Megapixie 07:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Is the idea that he had worked in the tube network a claim or just an hypothesis?

Rape insinuations

Just how sick is this? The man was shot by police, and that is the reason for the article. Now this sort of rubbish is being introduced. Even if the allegations were true, and they are not, they would not be relevant to this article. I doubt any English national would be subjected to this sort of prejudice by the London press. Wallie 23:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no intention of re-introducing the material you removed and I had no input into it being placed into the article in the first place, so I have no axe to grind, but just for the record - a) There are no "English nationals" only British nationals. b) There is no "London Press" to speak of apart from the Evening Standard. The popular press in Britain consists mostly of national newspapers. c) You obviously know little about British tabloids, the red tops report all sorts of scurrilous stuff no matter what a person's nationality. So these is no kind of prejudice going on here. d) There was an allegation and it was investigated and proven to be false. This was widely reported, not just by the red tops; indeed one of the references was from The Scotsman. Jooler 02:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Wallie, the section should be dropped. This is an article on de Menezes, so if the allegations were true, it would be relevant. Also, I don't agree that being cleared of a crime is offensive, nor that we should remove sections on the basis that they are offensive. But anyway yes, drop it. PizzaMargherita 05:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I take the point about "London press" and "English nationals". The language is a little off the cuff, and this is only a discussion page. I like the term "red tops" too. I was suprised you mentioned that the Scotsman covered this. However, even they can get desperate for material sometimes and jump on the bandwagon. The offensive bit to which I was referring was the fact there was any mention of the rape in the article at all. I can only assume it was there to put a question mark over Jean Charles's character to somehow justify poice actions. Note that the only reason for an article on Jean Charles is because of the shooting, and only material relating to this topic should be considered. Wallie 08:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's significant that the family believes that the police's willingness to investigate the rape allegations came from the continuation of the desire to smear JCdM in the press to take some heat off the Met. It did succeed in putting 'a cloud' over JCdM's reputation for a few weeks while some of the most damaging leaked allegations over the shooting were coming out. The way this is mentioned doesn't at all "put a question mark over [JC]'s character", but clearly states that the allegations were proven false... I could go either way on this, but it is a shame to throw away NPOV and verifiable content.KWH 16:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting angle. Like when the Home Office in the middle of the investigation hurried to disclose the (irrelevant) news that JCdM's visa was a stamp that was "not in use by the Home Office" when it was placed (they did not categorically say that it was a fake, which sounds even more fishy to me), presumably to ease the pressure on the met. If it's phrased as below I could be convinced to swing the other way, but I don't feel strongly either way. PizzaMargherita 16:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not want to throw away NPOV stuff either. But it does seem to me that the rape allegation was a big "red herring". It seems that you are more in touch with the news in the UK. I was not aware that the rape allegation was around for a while. I suppose I saw it in the article, and genuinely thought it irrelevant. The problem is with these allegations, is that if they hang round an article for long enough, they gain legs. People become as interested in the rape or non-rape, as the shooting itself. Wallie 23:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The libel accusation by Brian Paddick [7] is an example of a truly ephemeral news byte - it only lasted 11 days and ended up with nothing happening except a 'clarification'. But I think all of these bits are relevant since they show something of the still volatile political climate nearly a year after the shooting.

Let's talk this out - is there anything that can be done to make the below paragraph clearer for a 'naive' reader? Example = change the title to "False rape allegations" or "Spurious rape allegations"? (Both bad examples since they are a bit accusatory). I already edited it once for style, [8] and I just made a few additional changes. KWH 23:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

before it's removal the rape piece simply read: On 25 April 2006 it was confirmed that forensic tests had cleared the late Mr De Menezes of involvement in a rape alleged to have occurred 3 years earlier. His family had given permission for blood samples to be used in the tests.[28]

This is a short, straightforward and both factually correct and non-contentious summary. I propose that it be re-inserted. The section below attempts to provide too much detail relating to a closed, transitory sub-story to the main article content, namely the shooting. The ref link can provide further readingleaky_caldron 08:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually let's clarify that... the text below was originally in the article. Wallie removed it for POV qualms [9] on 5 May, then an anon IP added it back in a different way [10] on 7 May, and then you (leaky_cauldron) edited and added a ref to that. [11] I removed this representation when I refactored some things because it was in the wrong place (the rape is another police matter, not related to the IPCC investigation) and I felt the story was better represented by the below paragraph, though I did add your reference to the below paragraph.

The sentence you mention alone has no context; it seems a bit confusing to me, if I pretend for a moment to be a reader with no knowledge about the story. It says in brief - "he was cleared of rape charges-his family gave permission for blood tests" - nothing about where the charges came from, and nothing about the family's reaction. An offsite link provides verifiability, but we can't expect it to substitute for briefly describing the event since it might be taken offline (also, it's not going to help a reader of Wikipedia 1.0 on CD or paper.)

IMHO, the rape allegations are a lot like the allegations from the Home Office about the status of his immigration visa - it was a non-sequitur at the time but was somehow "made" relevant by various commentators and some apologists. People were putting it out there that JCdM may have run from police because his visa had expired, but it eventually came out that he didn't run at all, period. [12] This is where I think that Rape allegations also belongs under Disputed facts and events; all of these items are completely irrelevant in the sense that they were proven untrue, but they are highly relevant in the sense that it describes the circus of falsehoods which have surrounded the truth since day one.

I tried to trim down the below paragraph a little more, to just the facts. Feel free to reword further. The version added by the anon ip is here [13] but I felt that it had some confusing changes in verb tense. KWH 14:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy with the latest wording suggested by KWH. leaky_caldron 15:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Rape allegations

Original version, being edited below

In February 2006, a woman claimed to police that a man who resembled de Menezes attacked her in a hotel room on New Year's Eve 2002 in West London. Scotland Yard spent several weeks investigating the claim. After the claim was made public in March 2006, the de Menezes family denied the allegations and claimed that the Met was trying to "smear" de Menezes.

Although the family initially resisted giving the claim any credibility, a blood sample was eventually taken with their permission from de Menezes's autopsy. On April 25, 2006 Scotland Yard announced that forensic tests on the sample had cleared de Menezes and that the allegations were proven false.

Sir Ian Blair may face charges

The Independent is reporting that the Crown Prosecution Service is considering civil charges against Ian Blair: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article624682.ece.

Just thought I'd post that here in case anyone wants to follow put anything in the article, or keep an eye out for developments (Im not familiar enough with the details to write anything useful, so I'm going to leave the editing to someone else). Chovain 00:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

See todays BBC for further on that: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5186050.stm I will update the artical accordingly. The One00 19:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

CPS Investiagtion

I have added a paragraph about the shooting. However, I know only a little about it. Anyone with further information to hand would to well to add/ supplement/ clarify my bit. The One00 19:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Amnesty Internation and POV

In the section Jean Charles de Menezes#Public reaction, What exactly is the need of Amnesty International reporting how many people die in Brazil because of Police? These are the reasons I can think of:

1. Amnesty was interested in this whole incident and used this incident to show how police is brutal all over the world (and how HR are voilated all over the world etc.)
2. Amnesty was NOT interested in this particular case as such and just reported how police is brutal all over the world (and how HR are voilated all over the world etc.)
3. Amnesty wanted to show that people in Brazil die all the day and one or two killing in Britain is not such a big deal.

Until it is the third case, the current sentence: ...some British commentators who noted that extra-judicial executions by the police in Brazil are far from rare. An Amnesty International report published in 2004 pointed out that official figures show that in 2003 police shot dead 915 people in São Paulo alone, while 1,195 were killed by police in Rio de Janeiro[citation needed]. Amnesty also reported that such deaths were rarely investigated. reads like Amnesty was trying to prove how british commentators were right. If it was not so, or the commentators used Amnesty's report in such arguments, it should be written that way. I will wait for a week before I do the edit.

See previous discussion at Talk:Jean_Charles_de_Menezes/Archive1#Brazil_police_shootings. KWH 05:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

"illegal immigrant" in the article summary

In the article summary I consider these edits to be non-NPOV bordering on vandalism. --Sully 22:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about vandalism - people have their views and can choose to focus on different things - but it is misleading; if one were to read only the summary, one might be lead to believe that JCdM had immigrated illegally, not that he had overstayed a visa. Not to mention that it is undue weight, it has virtually nothing to do with what happened to him. KWH 22:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, I do believe that this is a contentious POV. People are normally and often identified by their home country and occupation - this is de rigeur in WP:LEAD grafs in Wikipedia. People are not normally identified by crimes they have committed unless their notability is based entirely on that crime. (e.g.: Ted Bundy "was an American serial killer and rapist…") I think that is pretty germane to NPOV. KWH 00:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I respect your POV. However, he was originally described in the introduction as an electrician. I think it is more important to the story that he was in the UK illegally than that he was an electrician. His skills as an electrician bear have no connection to his death. However, the fact that he know he was in the UK illegally, and would therefore is likely to have wanted to avoid the police, may be very relevant. I would like to believe that this is a genuine difference of opinion rather than people trying to advance an agenda. Arce 06:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

So this is using the "running from the police" argument that's already listed in disputed facts and events and that's been completely discredited by the IPCC leak? His immigration status is briefly mentioned in the main body of the article, the summary is supposed to be a brief summary of the article for those unfamiliar with the subject. If the main thrust of the article was about Jean Charles de Menezes being an illegal immigrant and his illegal immigration it might have some merit in the summary but even then the summaries should avoid contentious labelling.--Sully 09:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Saying that he might have wanted to avoid the police is speculation, not encyclopedic reporting: putting "illegal immigrant" there hoping that readers will do that speculation themselves is weaselly. (Besides, he was not given any warning, and the police were not in uniform.) I support leaving it out. Robin Johnson (talk) 10:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

If he was shot for being an illegal immigrant this would have merit in the lead, but in this case it is both contentious (overstaying a visa versus illegal immigration) and emotive. Establishing him as an electrician may have no purpose in the lead other than conforming with general practice, but replacing it with a POV term is not the solution. Yomangani^talk 10:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Sully - the "running from the police" theory was discredited months ago. Moving onward.KWH 13:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Introducing someone using nationality and job is standard practice. Having "illegal immigrant" is POV and misleading. PizzaMargherita 12:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I assume you deleted my comment by mistake. I will repeat it: "He wasn't shot for being an electrician was he?" Why is there no mention that he entered the UK on a false pretext of being a student, forged a stamp on his passport so it appeared he’d been granted indefinite leave to stay and then set himself up in business in the black economy? It is pretty clear that some of the people here have an agenda which is about supressing anything which might cast this man in a poor light. 81.19.57.146 13:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No doubt to the disappointment of some Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph readers, having a possibly-irregular immigration status does not carry a death penalty in this country – and it has not been proven that his status was irregular. Keep this article to the known facts, not rumour and spin. -- Arwel (talk) 13:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say he was shot because he was an illegal immigrant. I said he was shot AND he was an illegal immigrant, both of which are properly sourced facts - even in The Guardian. 81.19.57.146 15:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Please support your claim with links. PizzaMargherita 15:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Also very curious how User:Arce suddenly lost interest after an edit war. PizzaMargherita 15:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. I am reading the discussion with interest and will accept the conclusion. Arce 17:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't dispute that and it is .... mentioned the article already! You are trying to confuse the issue by implying this discussion is about whether it should be mentioned in the article at all. It isn't. There seems to be a tendency by some editors on wikipedia to stick everything but the kitchen sink in article summaries making the article look like a mess or mention pet small issues with the major ones making the summary non-NPOV, it adds weight to something that it probably should not have, if it only merits a tangential mention in the main article it probably shouldn't be in the article summary. If you're suggesting this article is missing some major issues related to his immigration status that were relevant to his shooting I suggest you add them citing suitable references.--Sully 18:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This discussion seems pretty concluded to me. Unless Arce/81.19.57.146 would like to continue, perhaps offering some resources. PizzaMargherita 08:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I am researching resouces as suggested, please give me 48 hours. Arce 22:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Put that he was a living saint if you like, he'll still be dead.Arce 22:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The police certainly put that electrician's lights out. Arf! NLB 10:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

GAC

The article was judged based on 7 criteria:

1. Well-written: Pass
2. Factually accurate: Pass
3. Broad: Pass
4. Neutrally written: Neutral
5. Stable: Fail
6. Well-referenced: Pass
7. Images: Pass

Unfortunately, the article fails. As it is undergoing an edit-war, as well as having a NPOV tag, placed only this morning, it cannot be said to be stable, and quite obviously the neutrality is disputed. While it is quite well referenced, there is also a section with a "lack of references" tag, which, while not enough to fail the article criteria, is troubling. I would ask that the article be cleaned up and resubmitted, and I am willing to take an immediate look at the article again once submitted, rather than having it wait in line, as it took 2 months the previous GAC nomination. Thank you. --PresN 17:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I took care of the missing references. KWH 04:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

As it has been a week since the tags were up and the discussion was active, I have been asked by KwH to re-evaluate the article. It is, as above, stable. I'm not going to bother with checking anything else out- no red left means that this article passes GAC. Congratulations! --PresN 04:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

de Menezes officer involved in another shooting

One of the officers involved in the de Menezes shooting has shot another person. The incident was on Tuesday 31 Oct 2006 during an alleged armed robbery at the New Romney branch of the Nationwide Building Society. The person later died in the William Harvey Hospital. - Source: BBC CEEFAX and ITV Teletext 2 Nov 2006. Ian Dunster 13:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Just had an update on the Radio on Kmfm news.

I have added a paragraph on the report to Jean_Charles_de_Menezes#Similar_incidents but as it's only breaking as I write it may need revising and updating later. Ian Dunster 13:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Illegal Imigrant?

The article implies that he was, technically, illegally in the country at the time. However, I do believe the words "illegal immigrant" push this article away from neutrality. I just think you all should discuss this, rather than continue the edit war. Ursasapien (talk) 07:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hard to discuss it with a hit-and-run anonymous IP. Nick Cooper 07:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Who was mysteriously reverted and warned by another hit-and-run anonymous IP. Methinks someone is warring through puppets. Ursasapien (talk) 08:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The Stockwell One Report clears this up, he was NOT an illegal immigrant. ( http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/stockwell_one.pdf ) On page 21, in footnote 4 it says: "Evidence emerged during the course of the criminal trial into the Health and Safety charge that Mr de Menezes was lawfully in the country on 22 July 2005." Galaad2 16:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Similar Incidents?

Perhaps I haven't looked hard enough, but it seems that this section is somewhat random. Are all these incidents cases where the police shot someone they suspected of being involved in a terrorist action? Technically, to be a similar incident, they should be cases where other suspects in the 7/21 bombings were shot by the UK police. Ursasapien (talk) 05:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

They are self-evidently similar in that they were unarmed men shot by the police on the basis of faulty intelligence. I assume that you are unaware that while fatal shootings by British police are rare - de Menezes was one of only six in England & Wales in 2005 - when they do happen they are subject to intense scrutiny and, unfortunately, a significant number have exhibited similar errors of judgement, both individual and operational. The very fact that - as I have shown - these comparisons are being made in Britain, rather than this being something constructed by a previous editor here, is justification enough for their inclusion. Nick Cooper 08:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I take issue regarding "the very fact that these comparisons are being made in Britain, rather than this being something constructed by a previous editor here, is justification enough for their inclusion." If fatal shootings by British police are so rare, then perhaps there should be an article/list/category regarding "Fatal shootings by British police." However, I do not see every fatal shooting by British police as relevant to this man's article. Again, if there were a rash of shootings involving suspects in the 7/21 bombings it might be relevent, but every fatal police shooting (unjustified or not) is not related to this man's situation in any way. Ursasapien (talk) 08:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

These other shootings are not about "Jean Charles de Menezes" and are not even compared to his death by the citations offered from what I can tell. Even if they were, other material belongs elsewhere. At most a brief mention is appropriate that some particular reputable source has drawn analogies to other shootings and the reader should be redirected to the appropriate article for any details. Alternatively this list could be placed in some kind of article of its own and linked to in a "see also" section. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 10:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice the two citations you added which mention some but not all of the other shootings. Nonetheless, the details of these shootings are simply not about de Menezes, whether they have been compared to his shooting or not. A brief mention of the coverage of this topic in some other appropriate article would be suitable, not the details of these other incidents. The topic of "disputed fatal shootings by the british police" should be covered in a different article. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 10:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Also don't believe "socialist worker" is a reliable source. That sort of advocacy journalism is best mentioned in direct balance with other views. You might leave the paragraph mentioning that this shooting has been compared to others, provide balance with opposing points of view, link to an article covering that topic, and please omit the details of the other shootings from this article. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 10:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Socialist Worker is widely referenced on Wikipedia, so presumably not everyone shares your views. In any case, the Daily Mail is about as the opposite of it as you can find, and yet it describes de Menezes's shooting as, "the latest in a list of controversial incidents involving police marksmen,"[14] and goes on to describe the killing of Harry Stanley, including the fact it stemmed from an erroneous report that he was a terrorist. Nick Cooper 11:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Irrespective of Socialist Workers merit. Several other newspapers made various comparisons at the time including the Independent and the Evening Standard [15], including the BBC and The Times [16]. I have restored a trimmed down version of the section and moved it down the article. Please re-read and see what you think. Megapixie 13:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, I am not sure this section belongs in this article. It seems like an oversimplification to state that any fatal shooting done by British police (or American Air Marshals for that matter) under questionable circumstances are related to this individual and his being shot. A shooting involving a naked man in a drug house seems to be completely unrelated to a man who was shot because he was mistaken for a terrorist. If any of these shootings are related, I could only see the incidents that involved suspected terrorism. Ursasapien (talk) 05:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

We are not talking about any shooting - we are talking specifically about shootings which have been linked by multiple sources [17] to this shooting. The connection with James Ashley is that he was unarmed, and was shot by a police officer who had been told before the raid that he was armed - i.e. faulty intelligence combined with having no other option other than to shoot. Megapixie 06:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I continue to maintain that this is a seperate article. Perhaps a sub-article/list entitled Shoot-to-kill policy in Britain. See Shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland or Operation Kratos for guidance. Perhaps, you could just post a summary like:

Main article: Shoot-to-kill policy in Britain

Comparisons have been made between the death of de Menezes and other incidents involving the shoot-to-kill policy of the British police .

This would streamline this article and make it better. Also I think "unfounded" is not the correct term. I'm going to try "false" Ursasapien (talk) 06:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm already working on a Police use of firearms in the United Kingdom article, and while this will include a "controversial shootings" section, not all of them bear any direct comparison with de Menezes. The first three examples used here, however, do. In the cases of Waldorf and Stanely, they were completely innocent and unarmed men going about their lawful business when they were killed because police of faulty police intelligence. The current Ashley page is really a bit of a mess and misses out a number of important facts (cf. [18]), the most significant being that there was little evidence that Ashley was armed, and that he had no history of using firearms, but the officers on the ground were briefed otherwise.

The bottom line, however, is that despite what people outside of the UK may think, de Menezes's death is very much seen within the UK as being very much within the context of previous (and subsequent) bungled police/security services shootings. This isn't the only page on to include a "similar incidents" section, and a little extra detail does no harm. Nick Cooper 07:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

{Un-indenting for better reading}The bottom line is Wikipedia is not a UK encyclopedia and this article is not about "British perception of de Menezes's shooting." This article is about Jean Charles de Menezes. To me, it is self-evident that this merits a summarized mention, followed by a link to a sub-article. This article is overly long and unwieldy. Can't something be done about it's length and the way it rambles on? Ursasapien (talk) 07:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't, and neither is it an US, Australia, Canadian, Irish, New Zealand or whatever encyclopedia. However, for you to argue that a page on a country-specific subject cannot reflect the domestic attitude to that subject is rather bizarre, as it is one of the factors which determines notability - and therefore justifies inclusion on Wikipedia - in the first place. I wonder how American editors would feel if British editors started paring down American subject pages on the grounds that American views on notabilty and what is seen as significant about the subject "don't count"? Surely the opposite is true, that Wikipedia allows editors in a particular country to show how certain events in their country are considered notable to those outside who may not understand why they are seen as such. There are plenty of American subjects which, from a British perspective, seem "no big deal," but I don't feel any urge to start reducing their content based on what I think is important, because I rightly recognise that American editors are in a better position to make those calls. Nick Cooper 08:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you give me an example of a biography of an "American" subject that includes material that is "not important" outside of America? I am not sure what your objection is to puting this in a linked sub-article. As a reader, this article seems long to me. I divided out some of the information on Michael Savage (commentator) and I think it has made the article more readable (and more neutral for that matter). Actually, "Similar Incidents" is just one section I think should be split off. I get the feeling you do feel a little UK ownership of this article, though. Ursasapien (talk) 09:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

How about Amadou Diallo#Cultural references to Diallo or Washington sniper#Profiling or Oklahoma City bombing#Children terrorized? I could understand that people in various countries may have various reactions to those (and many others), ranging from the indifferent to the adverse.

As to your accusation of "ownership," apart from the fact I've only edited this page six times (twice to revert yours or Fourdee's deletions), it's not being particularly proprietorial to point out that people who live in a country where an event happened - especially those who live in or are familiar with where it happened - are in a better position to judge the significant factors in that event that someone sitting behind a computer a couple of thousand miles away. I'm certainly not going to sit here and second-guess how people in New York feel about how the NYPD behaves.

The death of de Menezes did not take place in a contextual vacuum, and previous police shootings of the unarmed and innocent are widely recognised within the UK as being contributory or relevant to the situation in which he was killed. The section on similar incidents has already been substatially reduced, so I'm struggling to see what your problem is. Perhaps next you'd like to remove all mention of the attempted bombings the day before? After all, he wasn't one of the bombers, so why mention it? Nick Cooper 12:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Those articles bear no comparison to this "similar incidents" section. The Diallo article mentions references directly to his death, the profiling section of the washington sniper deals with the consequences of that incident, and the OKC-children bit is also directly related. Here you are cramming details of totally different events into an article that is not about those topics. Some mention is appropriate, the details just do not belong in this article. This isn't a UK-American issue, it's an off-topic issue. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 04:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

And the similar incident section here deals with reaction in the UK and how it is seen within the context of other UK ppolice shootings. The fact that what is perceived to be such a large proportion of those shot dead by British police have been in controversial circumstances was a major factor in the press and public reaction to the killing of de Menezes; it can't just be minimised as a brief "by the way..." comment. Oh, and get your facts straight, I am not "cramming (in) details" - they were already here and have already been substantially reduced, but obviously that's not enough to get round your inability to accept that people may have a different perspective to you. Nick Cooper 07:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with fourdee that "this isn't a UK-American issue, it's an off-topic issue." Additionally, I am not advocating we remove all mention of this content. I am saying the article would be better and more likely to reach FA status if this information was summarized and seperated off into a sub-article. If the information about the previous day's bombing was told in great detail, dominated the article, or if we had a section of "similar incidents" that listed terrorist actions going back farther than a decade - then, yes, I would be saying we need to remove the off-topic information. I am not saying that in this case! I think this information is "on-topic" but is a subject fork that should have it's own article. Ursasapien (talk) 06:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

So let me get this right. Despite the shooting of de Menezes being acknowledged and discussed within the UK as being in the context of other police shootings in the UK, and having provided ample evidence that it is, you two - Americans several thousand miles away and familiar with a radically different policing system - think you know better. Ten out of ten for cultural arrogance there, boys. Nick Cooper 07:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You are verging on violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and still are not explaining how the details of these other incidents are about "Jean Charles de Menezes". Why is it that the details need to be included in this article? Someone's compared our sun to another star, does that mean a description of the other star should be included in our sun's article? No. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 07:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

In your example, a certain degree of description would be perfectly justified to demonstrate the similarity, e.g. "the same size and within a similar solar system." In the case of de Menezes, the previous shootings are inextricably entwined with the public and media response to it. Once it was revealed that he was unarmed and unconnected with the bombings, people were saying - in black humour - things like, "Well, he was probably carry a table leg," in reference to Harry Stanley's death. That's annecdotal and so not "evidence," of course, but there is plenty of proof that such comparisons were being made in the media. Nick Cooper 12:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what your issue is. Are you saying that only Londoners can edit this article or only Britons can improve this article? I am not venturing an opinion on the British policing system. I am simply saying the long list of "Similar incidents" makes this article worse for the reader. I think the article would be better with a summary and a link to a main article. That is all I am saying and it does not seem arrogant to me. Remember to assume good faith. Ursasapien (talk) 09:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think both of you are still struggling with a problem of perception. Less people are shot dead in a year by police in England and Wales, covering a population of 53.4 million, than by the NYPD, covering a population of 8.2 million. Fatal police shootings - and most non-fatal ones - are national news in the UK and the subject of intense scrutiny and comparison with previous such events, and that of de Menezes was no different. This page already has a "public reaction" section, and reference to previous shootings is essentially another aspect of that reaction, and it shouldn't be downplayed or denied, which is what both of you are effectively doing. Nick Cooper 12:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

{Unindenting again}Nick, I think you are struggling with tunnel vision. I fully comprehend that fatal police shootings (outside of Northern Ireland) are vary rare in the UK. I also get that, given the small number of police shootings, the number of times that they wrongfully shoot someone is magnified. I understand that this man's death is related to the overall problem of the lethal force policy of the UK police. I am not trying to deny or downplay the reaction in the UK or the relatedness of the policy and the other cases. What you do not seem to see is that this issue (the firearms use policy of UK police) does not need to be covered in depth or only in Mr. de Menezes' article. It needs it's own article with a link and its relevance noted in this article. I have created such an article and I would encourage you to improve both that article and this one. Ursasapien (talk) 05:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that describes my attitude at all. As regards the issue of police firearms use in general, I fall pretty much between the two camps which think either that all police shootings are beyond criticism or investigation, and that none are justified. Yes, this is a subject for a separate page, which as I said above I'm already working on, although obviously now it'll be a question of adapting the page you started, as my intention is to cover equipment, training, etc., rather than just the "controversial" aspects. However, I am aware that within the UK reaction to de Menezes's death frequently included comparisons to previous police shooting incidents, a aspect which I suspect did not carry over to international reporting. For example, there lots about de Menezes on CNN.com, but no mention anywhere - let alone in comparative terms - of Stephen Waldorf or Harry Stanley.

I don't consider that - in covering the reaction to de Menezes's death - some detail here of the previous cases it has been compared to is unwarranted. I helps, rather that - as has been suggested - hampers the reader, but there has to be enough detail to avoid ambiguity. Something like, "Harry Stanley, shot dead after an erroneous report by a member of the public that he was carrying a sawed-off shotgun..." is better than the reader having to divert to his page in order to work out what can be summed up in one sentence, although obviously they have that option if they want to know more. Nick Cooper 08:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

IMHO the way things are handled now is best [19]. We link to the main article and briefly mention comparisons have been made to these other cases and mention the names of the cases. There is no need to go into any detail of the cases. People who are interested in knowing why comparisons have been made with these cases can read the main article and then (or alternatively straight away) check out the invidual articles on the cases Nil Einne 12:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Independent CPS and IPCC?

The 'Result of CPS investigation' section begins: In July 2006, the Crown Prosecution Service, which like the IPCC is also completely independent of the Metropolitan Police,

This appears a bit weasely to me, an attempt to get away with painting both the CPS and IPCC as being unconnected with the Police in one nice clean stroke.

In reality they are closely coupled to the Police by the very nature of their roles. While there is a Chinese wall form of independence between the Police and both of these organisations, in practice they have very deep links that have been maintained for many years and are inevitable due to the nature of their work. Officers pass back and forth between the IPCC and Police, and the Police work with the CPS in preparing cases, the contacts between all three are well known and numerous. Neither the CPS or IPCC are vassals of the Police, as witnessed by the sheer number of negative stories sourced from the Police about them in the Press.

I don't want to touch the main story myself because I'm biased and angry, but this particular sentence could do with some sort or revision or caveat to clarify the exact nature of the 'independence'. At the very least the word 'Completely' should be removed. EasyTarget 12:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to operates independently which IMHO is better wording. Hopefully others agree Nil Einne 12:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm Ok with that, thankyou. Readers can follow the links to IPCC and CPS for a better discussion of the levels of independence of these bodies.EasyTarget 14:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

IPCC "STOCKWELL 2" REPORT.

I have read the report and wanted to raise here something that I am curious about which the IPCC Report may not adequately cover namely the 22 July 2005 3.30pm Police "Press Conference" attended by Met. Commissioner Ian Blair. The timing of this Conference was put back to 3.30pm - I wonderend if anyone knew why and at what time it had originally been scheduled for. The "Stockwell 2" report simply confirms that it had been re-scheduled for 3.30pm but does not in any way clarify my queries. Furthermore I am curious as to how long the "Conference" lasted and exactly what its form was - were there any questions and answers - especially if they had directly engaged the Commissioner? I would be very interested to know whether any contribution made by the Commissioner was made in the form of question and answer because that could affect how his very briefly reported IPCC "Stockwell 2" Press Conference contribution might be more adequately adjudged.

The Guntz.

New article

New info emerging from trial: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7021401.stm Kaldari 21:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This is likely to result in new information being revealed on a daily basis. Editors should bear in mind exactly who is saying what, and clearly report it as such. For example, the above report is the prosecution's opening speech, which is effectively what they allege happened, and it should be reported in this context, rather than as absolute fact, since no doubt the defence will open with a radically different interpretation of events. Nick Cooper 07:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

There would seem to be very good reason why an accurate article based on outcome of the Old Bailey "Health and Safety" criminal prosecution would be extremely worthwhile. A puzzling feature of this prosecution which may eventually become clear because currently it most certainly isn't is why the 2 police officers who actually shot Jean Charles dead are not being made to attend to give evidence. To date I am unaware that any official explanation at all has been forthcoming for this curious situation. (The Guntz. 22 Oct.'07) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGuntz (talk • contribs) 19:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Status of visa

Having read the article, and read the debate on this talk page, trying to cover the status of his visa under the "Motivations" section is missing a valid debate and factual issues, and not in balance with media coverage. I'll state personally that it is sad that he died, and probably due to poorly executed police procedure - someone who's visa has expired should be not be shot dead. However, the status of his visa is a key debate - at best he was resident and working under a student visa, at worst he was not legally able to be in the UK. I stop short of illegal immigrant, which I conclude is POV on at least two levels: many non-UK born people are resident in the UK under expired visa's, and yet not accounted for by the authorities and are hence not legally illegal; there is no legal court concluded fact yet that he was in the UK illegally. I think the status and debate around the visa in the article should be expanded, and covered in a seperate section. Thoughts? Rgds, - Trident13 12:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll repeat here what I posted above:

I'm adding this BBC link for reference. It seems he had been in Ireland and would therefore have been entitled to a three month extension. According to the BBC, this would - at the earliest - have expired the day after he was shot. So, in fact, he was in the UK legally. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 19:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The status of his visa is utterly irrelevant. And, if you'll excuse me for saying so, your suggestion that it is appears merely to be piling speculation on speculation. It is speculation that he was hurrying away from the police (as against hurrying for any other reason); and to speculate about what the reason for this might have been, if it were the case, seems way beyond the remit of an encyclopedia. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 13:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't see the status of his visa is utterly irrelevant - and that position is certainly POV. That's perhaps a major reason why this article doesn't on this issue reflect the focus of the court debate, media coverage or the above debate. The major question resolves around why he was shot - which seems at present to focus on police procedure and authority. However, the question as to why he ran will be investigated as part of the current Old Bailey, and part of that will revolve around the visa. The BBC link you use states that his presence was unaccounted for for a period, and then had an old stamp placed in it - and legally, going to Ireland meant he could stay for 90days only if there were no other issues surrounding his status, and wouldn't have been allowed to work. As I said above, he shouldn't have been shot - but the status of his visa is a key secondary question, and should be fairly reflected in the article. Rgds, - Trident13 13:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

(1) The BBC link I used doesn't say meant he could stay for 90days only if there were no other issues surrounding his status, and wouldn't have been allowed to work by the way. (2) I suppose it is POV to say that speculation about speculation is irrelevant :)) But I don't see what the "key secondary issue" here is. DAC Dicks' evidence yesterday was that de Menezes' jumping off and then back onto the bus, following by phone calls and text messages, is what triggered the order to "stop" him. (3) I still don't see why the status of his visa is relevant. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 16:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the status of his visa IS relevent and should be included under 'False allegations' since the latest (but uncitable) sources in the Jean Charles camp repeat that he was fully legal to work in the UK, there was no '90 days' extention or any such thing - he was legal to work here and was a tax-paying, model citizen - as was admitted by Jack Straw right from the begining. The only people to claim otherwise are tabloids and discredited slanderers.&npsp;&npsp;195.147.88.130 12:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The main for and against claims are already mentioned in the Biography section, and have been for ages.--ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 15:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but my point is that this should be under 'Disputed facts and events' since it's untrue - it's not a part of his life and should not be in his biography or under plausable reasons he 'may have ran from police' since it's false. Same as the removed rape allegation. He had indefinate leave to stay and a full work permit and it shouldn't be noted as anything other than an allegation. I just wish the damned BBC would publish a retraction so I can cite this. 195.147.88.130 11:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The visa status is relevant in that if JCDM were here on an expired visa it would explain why he might evade a police request to stop. Though the 'vaulting the ticket barrier' claims have been shown to be false, we do not have audio of the police chase and it IS possible that he ignored the alleged police attempts at communication. Furthermore, a point not discussed here is the level of compensation offered or paid, which might be impacted by any contribution on the part of the individual shot. You cannot argue that being in the country on a potentially expired visa, rather then leaving is not a contributory factor to one's own fate if later injured by police. The Home Office statement suggests that parts of his documentation might have been forged (reference to a stamp not in use at the time of issue). The fact that JCDM re-entered the UK via Ireland and thus qualified for an automatic 3 month stay is a moot point if his admission to Ireland or the UK at any time was based on a forged stamp, since had this been detected would have resulted in his likely expulsion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.52.170 (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be ingnoring that fact that it has beene established that he did not run from the police, more likely as not because he seems gto have been utterly unaware that he was actually beign followed. He casually picked up a free newspaper in the station ticket hall, and used his Oyster card to legitimately pass the barriers. It's pointless saying that, "he might have run because..." when it's now clear that he didn't run at all. Nick Cooper (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Nick - the point is that the CCTV coverage does not have audio, so we don't know whether the police called out to JCDM as they claim, or whether that claim was fabricated. Whether he was running or walking is pretty much irrelevant. If the police issued a 'stop' command that was ignored (because the suspect may have erroneously thought he was being persued on a visa check) that would raise suspicion just as much as someone sprinting off into the distance. The police not knowing they had the wrong man may have taken failure to respond to 'stop' - especially in the climate around 7/7 - as very suspicious behaviour. The certainty that JCDM was completely blameless when he may have been here on forged documentation and evading arrest - concerns me. No-one deserves to die for such a transgression. But to claim it would have had no impact on events is patently untrue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.204.182 (talk) 21:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

"De" Menezes?

After reading so many interesting and much more relevant points about the factual events being raised here, I am a bit ashamed of raising a minor and strictly formal one. But being Brazilian and having noticed it, I thought I might add it. I could have directly edited the article page, but I decided to submit it to your opinion first.

When the preposition de ("of") is present in surnames, Portuguese speakers never include it when citing only the surname. The probable reason is that since Portuguese lacks a genitive case, de is much more commonly used in Portuguese sentences than "of" in English: there is no Portuguese construction similar to "Jean's jacket" (for example), so we always have to say "the jacket of Jean" (a jaqueta de Jean) instead. If the surname's de particle were used, this would lead to strange-sounding, awkward constructions with de appearing twice in a row, such as a jaqueta de de Menezes - and one would not write or say "of of" in English either. Even in other contexts, if the surname were to be used alone at all (most likely, the forename would, by cultural custom), he would be referred to as simply "Menezes" (without the particle) in Brazil.

However, the de particle does usually pass on to descendants along with the family name, so it may be considered an integral part of the surname. Yet it is still just a preposition, not a noun, let alone a name. So, it would be a matter of definition whether to use it or not in English when referring to a Brazilian national who has the particle in his or her surname. I am just pointing out that this sounds very awkward to Brazilians and he would never be referred to as such here. We roll on the floor laughing when we see President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (known simply as "Lula" or "President Lula" here) being called "Mr. da Silva" in the foreign press (or worse, "Da Silva" or "DaSilva," since de and its derived forms are not capitalised, except when starting sentences, titles or headings - as above - and by any means are never agglutinated).

I might also add that even though German von and Dutch van, for example, also correspond to the preposition "of," in those cultures it mostly implies nobility or peerage in a person's ancestry, even if remotely so, and often indicates the family's historical feudal unit or original geographic location. So, it makes sense to subtly indicate and acknowledge that implicit piece of information by keeping the particle. However, this is rarely the case in Iberian and derived cultures, it is not generally assumed to be so, and there are many possible reasons why a particle is or is not present in a surname (including just plain notarial error when registering a child's birth certificate!).

--UrsoBR 00:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps add a couple of words to the lead?--ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 09:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Metropolitan police fined for de Menezes killing

Now the trial is over, and the Met have been found guilty of breaking the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (which requires an employer to ensure the safety of non-employees), and fined £175,000 + £385,000 costs. See here: [20] I think this should probably be in the article somewhere, but I'm not exactly sure where... anyone prepared to be bold and put it in? (Should possibly be mentioned on the Ian Blair article as well.) Terraxos 17:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Article needs a update [21] [22] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.113.219 (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

So who's doing the update ?

The questions which remain crucial are- why were the police gunmen ("marksman" hardly seems an appropriate term)4 hours late ? Their explanation that they ran out of petrol is hardly sufficient. When they did turn up it was just in time to jump over barriers shooting Menezes and almost shooting the surveillance officer and the train driver- all of which has only come out in the prosecution- as did the fact that a supposed bomber was allowed to travel on a bus before getting to the Tube. The jury has said it found that Cressida Dick was not to blame. How can this be? Did she not notice that the firearms team had gone AWOL for several hours ? This has focussed media ire upon Sir Ian Blair quite unfairly, except for his decision to subsequently promote Dick to be his deputy and potentially his successor should he actually resign. I do not feel qualified to update this, but if nobody steps forward I may do so. Streona 02:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

CCTV available following H&S conviction.

Quite a lot of new (at least to me) CCTV footage was shown on the News last night. Including a very clear 'head on' shot of him swiping his card and walking through the barriers.
I just added a note about that to the 'ticket barriers' section, but don't have time to find a reference at present. If someone else has time to track this down it could be useful. In fact, there was quite a lot of new footage that could be referenced in this article to clarify some of the points of confusion/contention.
EasyTarget 09:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit needed

The article needs a fairly comprehensive copyedit to reflect what came out in the trial, removing or at least noting as untrue initial speculations which were shown at the trial to be incorrect. I've just edited the lead to make clear that the decision not to prosecute individual officers was separate from the juries' note that no personal culpability attaches to Cmdr Dick. I've also gone through standardising date links (e.g. change "1st October" to a linked "1 October", and linking years attached to day-month dates in order to let the full user-preference date options to work). -- Arwel (talk) 09:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Police version of events at Old Bailey trial

In the police challenge section, we have the following text:

Police initially stated that they challenged de Menezes and ordered him to stop outside Stockwell station. Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair said in a later press conference that a warning was issued prior to the shooting. Lee Ruston, an eyewitness who was waiting on the platform, said the police did not identify themselves. The Times reported "senior police sources" as saying that police policy would not require a warning to be given to a suspected suicide bomber before lethal action was taken.

The leaked IPCC documents indicated that de Menezes was seated on the train carriage when the SO19 armed unit arrived. A shout of 'police' may have been made, but the suspect never really had an opportunity to respond before he was shot. The leaked documents indicated that he was restrained by an undercover officer before being shot.

However, statements by the Met's defence counsel at the Old Bailey trial (see BBC News, 26 Oct 2007) still maintain that JCdM was "non-compliant":

Mr Thwaites suggested the 27-year-old may have failed to comply with officers who challenged him because he thought he had drugs in his pocket or because he had a forged stamp in his passport. ... Another officer said Mr de Menezes "jumped up from his seat" and a third that he "showed no sign of complying" ... He was shot because when he was challenged by police he did not comply with them but reacted precisely as they had been briefed a suicide bomber might react at the point of detonating his bomb.

Obviously the evidence given in court on behalf of a guilty defendant is not always reliable. However, since the defendant in this case was the Metropolitan Police, their evidence surely carries some weight. They clearly still believe that JCdM was "challenged", and that he had an opportunity to "comply", but responded aggressively. As such, I wonder if the police challenge section gives too much weight to the conclusion that JCdM had no opportunity to respond to police? Mtford 19:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that evidence given on behalf of a defendant who is found guilty is broadly the evidence the jury has chosen to reject. in the same trial, on the same point, prosecution counsel said that de Menezes was acting normally and it is reasonable to assume that the jury accepted this because they convicted. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 19:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Three issues here:

• The jury merely found the police guilty of "endangering the public"; no judgement was passed on the truth of individual evidence. Even if the jury believed police accounts that JCdM acted suspiciously, they may still have reached a guilty verdict for other reasons (e.g. that suspicious behaviour was not an adequate reason to shoot him).
• The individual police officers were not found guilty, so their quoted testimony was not that of a guilty party.
• The verdict of any jury is ultimately a POV. Although it establishes legal culpability, and conventionally allows the press to use terms like "murderer" in place of "suspect" or "defendant", it does not establish irrefutable truth. This is a grey area for Wikipedia, though in most cases it seems acceptable to state legal judgements as NPOV fact.

The defence statements were vague (what did "compliance" mean?), but I think they are still notable, and the question of JCdM's behaviour and awareness of the situation should be considered uncertain. Mtford 21:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from. Firstly, the police cannot be regarded as reliable sources from a Wikipedia point of view because they had a massive confict of interest. Secondly, the police evidence is not fact but impression. Thirdly, the police evidence is anyway disputed. Fourthly, the event suffered from "fog of war" problems with conflicting police statements being made and retracted.

I suppose the sub-text to this is to what extent did de Menezes (unwittingly) contribute to his own death. In a more clear-cut case - for instance, a prankster brandishing a toy gun - that's a fairly easy decision to make but the issues are much more complex here. It will be interesting to see what comes out at the inquest and what the inquest jury decides.--ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 06:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to push any specific agenda, except to the extent that Wikipedia should document all reasonable views on the topic (in particular, I'm not defending the police or blaming de Menezes for his death). I completely agree that the police are not a reliable source, so we cannot cite their evidence as fact. However, I think we should not jump to the other extreme by stating categorically that the other witnesses were correct. Sentences like "...later report indicates he was not challenged" seem a bit too strong. Until the police formally retract their claim that JCdM acted with aggression and non-compliance, it remains notable that a branch of the UK authorities are maintaining this version of events. (NB another possible explanation is that JCdM felt threatened by the officers, but thought they were local 'yobs', in which case he did act with aggression or evasion for an innocent reason; the police testimony would then have some partial truth). Mtford 16:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. The whole thing is a nightmare from a Wikipedia stand point and probably gets much easier with distance. It will be interesting to see what the IPCC report finally says, and what the inquest jury decides. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 17:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Stockwell One has now been published and probably represents the most impartial analysis to date. I'll start updating the article accordingly in the next few days.--ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 11:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The officer

The officer at Scotia Road was probably perfectly able to turn on the camera or it was already turned on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.39.197 (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Explosion

The fact that Menezes picked up a free newspaper suggests that he had no intention of committing suicide.

The Police seem to have been bedevilled by a whole series of malfunctioning CCTV cameras.

Removal of False claims of about residency status

I wish I could find some sources to site for this beyond the De Mennezes family and the campaign site or I'd have made some edits and changes myself - but any claims here was here illegally are false. Jean Charles had full UK status, was here legally, had a work permit and was a tax-paying citizen. This 'allegation' is one of the few not made up by the police, it appeared in several tabloids and later picked up as fact by the BBC and police 'sources'. It isn't true and the BBC source is from 2005, quotes discredited people and isn't current to the recent trial in which visa status wasn't mentioned. I just wish I could find a source to cite? Can anyone else fine one as this visa claim should be added to the false allegation list and removed from the body text of the article as fact. 195.147.88.130 12:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.39.197 (talk) 14:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The Stockwell One Report clears this up, he was NOT an illegal immigrant. ( http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/stockwell_one.pdf ) On page 21, in footnote 4 it says: "Evidence emerged during the course of the criminal trial into the Health and Safety charge that Mr de Menezes was lawfully in the country on 22 July 2005." Galaad2 16:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This discussion contradicts a comment in the article proper, which suggests that JCDM passport had a questionable stamp. There seems to be a fair amount of confusion over this - the fact that he had an entry stamp being touted as proof of legal residancy, wheras the comment pertaining to the stamp suggests it may have been an obsolote stamp ie a forgery. Until this is resolved, comments such as 'he was definitely a legal resident' and 'he was definitely an illegal immigrant' seem unwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.204.182 (talk) 21:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions of 'special forces' involvement in the shooting

Later, a security agency source said: “This take-out is the signature of a special forces operation. It is not the way the police usually do things. We know members of SO19 have been receiving training from the SAS, but even so, this has special forces written all over it.”

It certainly doesn't seem appropriate to me to include speculation from an anonymous source that dates from shortly after the shooting when few facts were in the public domain - I don't see that it adds anything to the article.

Furthermore, half the 'involvement of special forces' section of the page is built around a quote that was given on the very day of the shooting, before the identity (and 'innocence') of the victim was know.

AFAIK the recent (October 2007) trial of the Metropolitan Police specifically identified the men who carried out the shooting as police officers. I suppose that there is a case for noting that immediately after the killing there was speculation about 'special forces' having being involved in the shooting, but I think now it is possible to attribute this to a combination of surprise at the nature of the shooting (multiple shots to the head, now known to be something that police officers would have considered and planned as part of Operation Kratos) and the simple fact that journalists like the air of mystery and menace that a mention of 'special forces' brings to their story.

--James Harvard (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I found another article about involvment of UKSF in the police operation : [23]. I think it's interesting because it has some details about the exact role of a SRR soldier. Rob1bureau (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

"shot and killed" is ambiguous

This doesn't specify if he died from being shot or from something else. 131.170.90.2 (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Anonymous

Indeed. It original said "shot dead" but was changed to "shot and killed" by an anonymous IP who refused to back now after numerous reversions. I have changed it back again. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

what are the legal differences between "shot dead", "shot and killed" and "murdered"?

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, with malice aforethought. "Shot dead" and "shot and killed" have no legal meaning, they are purely descriptive that someone died as a result of being shot; they do not imply whether the death was lawful or not, with or without malice aforethought. In this particular case the legal authorities have decided that the shooting was not unlawful, therefore it was not murder or manslaughter. -- Arwel (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The inquest has not taken place, therefore the "legal authorities" have not decided any such thing. Nick Cooper (talk) 07:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Nick Cooper, you were correct when you stated that it has not been decided whether his death was lawful or unlawful. However, a person's death is not deemed to be a murder unless an inquiry/trial concludes that. As a result, Menezes' death cannot be stated on this article as being a murder. EasyPeasy21 (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

True, but then I've never said that it was. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

SO19 renamed before or after 22/7/05?

I just undid a change from SO19 to CO19, the unit has indeed changed name but the earliest I can find a reference to this is August 2005. It is interesting what I found:

1. I failed to find any definitive info on this (my bad) I cannot be sure what the name was at the actual time of the shooting. It would be nice to clear this up and use the correct designation.
2. In Stockwell-1 [24]; SO19 is mentioned 8 times, and CO19 appears 148 times. SO12,13 and 15 are also mentioned.
3. In stockwell-2 [25]; SO19 is mentioned once (search for SOI9; appears to be a typo in the pdf), CO19 is likewise only mentioned once. There are 77 references to SO13.
4. See also: Talk:Specialist_Firearms_Command#Change_of_name_-_now_CO19

So it appears that even the IPCC is not consistent about this, and it appears to be a widespread confusion, with the two being used interchangeably, even within the service.
This is something that really needs noting and making consistent in the main article, and the different 'actors' listed in the reports need placing in context too. For Instance SO13 is barely mentioned.
EasyTarget (talk) 08:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Some comments on the lead section

I'm being cautious because this is a busy article on a sensitive subject, but I think the following points are worth discussion:

"Brazilian national" - I'm guessing the word "national" has been used because no other noun was suitable, e.g. his occupation which is not important, but if that's the case I think just "Brazilian" suffices, the word "national" is superfluous.

"Unnamed Metropolitan Police officers" - how about "the Metropolitan Police"? The current wording seems to imply that the officers who fired the shots should be named, a suggestion that is not ours to make.

"Initially witnesses incorrectly claimed that he was wearing bulky clothing and that he had vaulted the ticket barriers running from police." Obviously relevant, but is it important enough to be the third sentence in the article? Eyewitness testimony was neither the cause of Menezes's notability nor a factor in his death.

"The officers involved in killing Menezes have not been charged" - I think this belongs in the IPCC section of the article rather than the lead. Mentioned without context it seems to imply that they should have been charged.

I would prefer to discuss before making any changes. Lfh (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Osman Hussain.jpg

The image Image:Osman Hussain.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Evidence tampering

One of the most serious issues at the trial was surely the evidence tampering by the Metropolitan Police when they photoshopped JCdM's image to make it seem that he more closely resembled Hussain Osman. As long as the police are armed there will always be occasional mistaken shootings. But evidence tampering goes to the very heart of what a police force does. If we cannot trust the police to present honest evidence at trials then all convictions are suspect.

I suggest a new paragraph in the section about the IPCC and CPS enquiries along the following lines:

"During the trial the Metropolitan Police presented a comosite image showing half of Jean Charles de Menezes's face and half of Hussain Osman's. The apparent purpose was to persuade the jury that the two men closely resembled eachother. However, it emerged that the image had been manipulated to exaggerate the resemblance"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7048756.stm

Qlangley (talk) 18:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Normally, I'd say Wikipedia:Be bold but in this case, I think it's good you asked. While it should be okay to mention the manipulation allegations in the article, that is all we have so far. The BBC page you link to doesn't establish that the photos were manipulated, rather it says that the allegation was made in court, an allegation that was denied by the police. If any decision was ever reached by the court as to whether the evidence was manipulated, then that can be included, otherwise it should be presented as what it is, an allegation, not a fact Nil Einne (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a fair point. Though we should probably note that the allegation came from an expert witness. qlangley —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qlangley (talk • contribs) 15:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No warning given

I don't have time to add it myself, but reports from eyewitnesses coming out of inquest suggest no warning was given and that no one was aware that the officers involved were police [26] (indeed at least one person thought they were terrorists) Nil Einne (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Some witnesses did in fact see police caps worn by some of the firearms officers. Others did not. No civilian witness in the carriage recalled a warning being given. --TS 08:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Legelly in the country?

Other reports state that he was in the country againest the law, thus if he had been a law abiding person he would still be alive if this statement was true —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.46.206.89 (talk) 12:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that you re-read the article. The "Biography" section makes it clear that he was in the country legally. End of. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sir Michael Wright AB.JPG

I was in London yesterday and spent a little while outside the Oval to catch some of the important figures arriving at the inquest. I've uploaded this photo of the coroner to Commons now and will do so with any of the others I took which I can identify whom they are of and that they aren't anonymous witnesses that to identify might put me in contempt of court. Unfortunately I didn't see the family arrive and I suspect they might not have attended yesterday. Perhaps those more familiar with this article and any relevant others can see whether this photo might be of use. Regards. Adambro (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Good work! It fits into the new "Inquest" section I have begun. Salmanazar (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Criminal trial

The use of terms such as "health and safety trial" in the article, and in some newspapers has been the cause of much misunderstanding due to the incorrect belief that this was some minor procedural affair involving a ticking off by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE)--so much so that both the HSE and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) have gone to the length of issuing corrective notices to newspaper articles that incorrectly attributed the trial to the HSE. The trial was brought, as is normal for a public criminal trial in England and Wales, by the CPS.

For this reason I've made stylistic edits describing the trial as a criminal trial under the Health and Safety at Work Act, 1974. The charges tried were for crimes created by that act. The term "health and safety trial" should be avoided because of the ambiguity. --TS 08:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

If the prosecution was say recommended/requested by inspectors from the Health and Safety Executive this needs to be said. The HSE is an independent organisation from the police, so independent they even have a different government minister. The HSE responsibilities including investigating deaths and injuries at work (the policemen were working). This independence means that not even Britain's top policeman could stop the criminal trial of his police force.

The killing of Jean de Menezes was obviously deliberate, it is just the police shot the wrong man. The de Menezes family have obtained their revenge by having the entire London Metropolitan Police put on trial and convicted. This is unusual, frequently a few low ranking people are made scapegoats for the actions of the organisation and its bosses. The subsequent inquest has been very embarrassing for the police (including its Commissioner) and resulted in a world wide loss of honour and face. (Nasty) The revenge will be complete when the family and supporters have ensured that the recommendations of the enquiries have been carried out. Andrew Swallow (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The Health and Safety Executive had nothing to do with the criminal prosecution, which was handled by the CPS (which is also independent of the police, as was the IPCC which investigated the affair). See this response to an article in The Sun newspaper, and this response to yet another article in the same newspaper. And here for another attempt by the Chief Executive of the HSE to correct false statements made in the press. --TS 07:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

And this from the CPS. MickMacNee (talk) 20:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)