首页 | 主题 | 图库 | 问答 | 文摘 | 原创 | 百科

历史 | 地理 | 人物 | 艺术 | 体育 | 科学 | 音乐 | 电影 | 信息技术 | 世界遗产

 开放、中立,源自维基百科

Personal tools

Jean Charles de Menezes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Jean Charles de Menezes
Error creating thumbnail: convert: unable to open image `/home/www/en.wikilib.com/images/6/66/Menezes.jpg': 没有那个文件或目录.
convert: missing an image filename `/home/www/en.wikilib.com/images/thumb/6/66/Menezes.jpg/225px-Menezes.jpg'.
Jean Charles de Menezes
Born 7 January 1978(1978-01-07)
Flag of Brazil Gonzaga, Minas Gerais, Brazil
Died 22 July 2005 (aged 27)
Flag of the United Kingdom Stockwell tube station, London, UK

Jean Charles de Menezes (7 January, 197822 July, 2005) was a Brazilian national living in the Tulse Hill area of south London. De Menezes was shot dead at Stockwell tube station on the London Underground by unnamed Metropolitan Police officers. Initially witnesses incorrectly claimed that he was wearing bulky clothing and that he had vaulted the ticket barriers running from police. A police spokeman said on the day that, "his clothing and behaviour added to their suspicions," and that he ran onto the train after police had issued warnings.[1] It soon became clear that de Menezes did not vault and run from the police, but police did not alter their statement until the correct information was leaked to the press. They later issued an apology, saying that they had mistaken him for a suspect in the previous day's failed bombings and acknowledging that de Menezes in fact had no explosives and was unconnected with the attempted bombings. The officers involved in killing de Menezes have not been charged; the jury at the corporate trial of the Metropolitan Police for violations of health and safety law attached a rare rider to their verdict that they attached "no personal culpability" to Deputy Assistant Commissioner Cressida Dick, the officer in charge of the operation that day.

Contents

Biography

The son of a bricklayer, de Menezes grew up on a farm in Gonzaga, Minas Gerais, Brazil. After discovering an early aptitude for electronics, he left the farm at age 14 to live with his uncle in São Paulo and further his education. At 19 he received a professional diploma from Escola Estadual (State School) São Sebastião. He had originally wanted to go to the United States of America but was refused a work visa.

The Home Office said he arrived in Britain on 13 March, 2002, initially being granted a six-month visitor's visa. He then applied to stay on a student visa, receiving permission to remain until 30 June, 2003. It said it had no record of any further correspondence. A spokeswoman added: "We have seen a copy of Mr de Menezes' passport, containing a stamp apparently giving him indefinite leave to remain in the UK. On investigation, this stamp was not one that was in use by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate on the date given."

The family of de Menezes however deny this, and then Foreign Secretary Jack Straw stated that he believed de Menezes was living in the UK legally, but had no precise information to confirm this.[2]

On Friday July 22, 2005 de Menezes was shot dead by Metropolitan Police armed officers.

On Wednesday July 27, 2005, de Menezes' body was flown to Brazil for burial. His funeral took place in Gonzaga on July 29, 2005.[3] A public memorial service for de Menezes was presided over by Cormac Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor at Westminster Cathedral around the same time.

Background to the shooting

Almost all of the facts regarding the de Menezes shooting were initially disputed by various parties. Contradictory witness accounts, "off the record" statements from police, and media speculation added to the confusion. An ITV report on 16 August, 2005 claimed to contain leaked documents from an IPCC investigation which provided additional information. For a summary of the facts and events initially disputed, see Disputed facts and events. For a step-by-step BBC news animated guide to what actually happened, from the day the trial concluded see: "What happened: Death of Jean Charles de Menezes", BBC News Online, 2007-11-01. (English) 

Error creating thumbnail: convert: unable to open image `/home/www/en.wikilib.com/images/6/6e/21_July_London_Bombing_Suspects_CCTV.jpeg': 没有那个文件或目录.
convert: missing an image filename `/home/www/en.wikilib.com/images/thumb/6/6e/21_July_London_Bombing_Suspects_CCTV.jpeg/180px-21_July_London_Bombing_Suspects_CCTV.jpeg'.
21 July London Bombing Suspects
Error creating thumbnail: convert: unable to open image `/home/www/en.wikilib.com/images/d/d0/Osman_Hussain.jpg': 没有那个文件或目录.
convert: missing an image filename `/home/www/en.wikilib.com/images/thumb/d/d0/Osman_Hussain.jpg/150px-Osman_Hussain.jpg'.
Hussain Osman, whose description de Menezes allegedly matched based on the CCTV images. (NB this photo was taken later, after Osman was arrested.)

On 22 July, 2005, London police were searching for four suspects in four attempted bombings carried out the previous day; three at Underground stations and one on a bus in Hackney. As the perpetrators had not died in the failed suicide bombing, a large police investigation began immediately, with the aim of tracking them down. A written address on a gym membership card had been identified from materials found inside the unexploded bags used by the bombers, located within a three-storey block of nine flats in Scotia Road, Tulse Hill.[4]

At around 9:30 a.m., surveillance officers observing the address saw de Menezes emerge from the communal entrance of the block. The officers were watching three men who they claimed were Somali, Eritrean, or Ethiopian in appearance.

De Menezes, an electrician, lived in one of the flats with two of his cousins, and had just received a call to fix a broken fire alarm in Kilburn.

An officer on duty at Scotia Road, referred to as 'Tango Ten' in some reports on the incident, and as 'Frank' in Stockwell One, compared de Menezes to the CCTV photographs of the bombing suspects from the previous day, and felt "it would be worth someone else having a look", but "was in the process of relieving [him]self", and was thus unable to immediately turn on a video camera to transmit images to Gold Command, the Metropolitan Police ("Met") operational headquarters for major incidents. The BBC's Panorama programme of 8 March 2006, a special feature on the shooting by Peter Taylor, claimed that 'Tango Ten' was an undercover soldier.[5]

On the basis of Tango Ten's suspicion, Gold Command authorised officers to continue pursuit and surveillance, and that the suspect was to be prevented from entering the Tube system.

Documents from the independent agency investigation of the shooting later concluded that mistakes in police surveillance procedure led to a failure to properly identify de Menezes early on, leading to rushed assumptions and actions later at Stockwell Tube station.[6]

Pursuit and shooting

The officers followed de Menezes for 5 minutes as he walked to a bus-stop on Tulse Hill for the Number 2 bus routes. As he boarded a bus, several plainclothes police officers boarded, continuing the pursuit.

At Brixton Station de Menezes briefly got off the bus, saw the station was closed, and reboarded the bus to continue to Stockwell. The three surveillance officers later stated that they were satisfied that they had the correct man, noting that he "had Mongolian eyes".[7] Finally the bus arrived at Stockwell Tube station, 3.3km (2 miles) away.

At some point during this journey, the pursuing officers contacted Gold Command, and reported that de Menezes potentially matched the description of two of the previous day's suspects, including Osman Hussain.[8] Based on this information, Gold Command authorized "code red" tactics, and ordered the surveillance officers to prevent de Menezes from boarding a train. According to a "senior police source at Scotland Yard", Police Commander Cressida Dick told the surveillance team that the man was to be "detained as soon as possible", before entering the station.[9] Gold Command then transferred control of the operation to CO19, which dispatched firearms officers to Stockwell Tube Station.

At some point de Menezes phoned a colleague, Gesio de Avila, saying he would be late due to the disruption of public transport caused by the previous day's attempted bombings.

De Menezes entered the Tube station at about 10:00 a.m., stopping to pick up a free Metro newspaper. He used his Oyster card to pay the fare, walked through the barriers, and descended the escalator slowly. He then ran across the platform to board the newly-arrived train. De Menezes boarded the train and found one of the first available seats.

Error creating thumbnail: convert: unable to open image `/home/www/en.wikilib.com/images/b/b3/Menezes-death.jpg': 没有那个文件或目录.
convert: missing an image filename `/home/www/en.wikilib.com/images/thumb/b/b3/Menezes-death.jpg/180px-Menezes-death.jpg'.
De Menezes' body shown lying on the floor of a carriage, wearing a denim jacket.

Three surveillance officers, codenamed Hotel 1, Hotel 3 and Hotel 9, followed de Menezes onto the train. According to Hotel 3, de Menezes sat down with a glass panel to his right about two seats in. Hotel 3 then took a seat on the left with about two or three passengers between de Menezes and himself. When the firearms officers arrived on the platform, Hotel 3 moved to the door, blocked it from closing with his left foot, and shouted 'He's here!' to identify the suspect's location.

The firearms officers boarded the train and may have challenged the suspect[citation needed], though later report indicates he was not challenged [10]. According to Hotel 3, de Menezes then stood up and advanced towards the officers and Hotel 3, at which point Hotel 3 grabbed him, pinned his arms against his torso, and pushed him back into the seat. Although de Menezes was being restrained, his body was straight and not in a natural sitting position. Hotel 3 heard a shot close to his ear, and was dragged away onto the floor of the carriage. He shouted 'Police!' and with hands raised was dragged out of the carriage by one of the armed officers who had boarded the train. Hotel 3 then heard several gunshots while being dragged out.[11] Two officers fired a total of eleven shots according to the number of empty shell casings found on the floor of the train afterwards. De Menezes was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder at close range, and died at the scene. An eyewitness later said that the eleven shots were fired over a thirty second period, at three second intervals.[12] A separate witness reported hearing five shots, followed at an interval by several more shots.[13] It later emerged that hollow point bullets had been employed and a senior police source said that de Menezes' body had been "unrecognisable." The bullets are illegal in warfare, but are widely used in law enforcement where it may often be necessary to quickly stop an armed assailant. A Home Office spokesman said, "Chief officers can use whatever ammunition they consider appropriate for the operational circumstances."[14] Immediately after the shooting, the Metropolitan Police stated that the shooting was "directly linked" to the investigation of the attempted bombings the previous day. It was revealed that police policy toward suspected suicide bombers had been revised, and that officers had been ordered to fire directly toward suspects' heads, the theory according to British authorities being that shooting at the chest could conceivably detonate a concealed bomb.[15]

The SO19 firearms officers involved in the shooting were debriefed and drugs and alcohol tests were taken as a standard procedure. The officers were taken off duty pending an investigation into 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.” [16]

Aftermath of the shooting

The day after the shooting, the Metropolitan Police identified the victim as Jean Charles de Menezes, and said that he had not been carrying explosives, nor was he connected in any way to the attempted bombings. They issued an apology describing the incident as "a tragedy, and one that the Metropolitan Police Service regrets."

The de Menezes' family condemned the shooting and rejected the apology. His grandmother said there was "no reason to think he was a terrorist." It was reported that the dead man's family were offered almost £585,000 compensation.[17]

His cousin, Alex Alves Pereira, said, "I believe my cousin's death was result of police incompetence." Pereira said that police claims regarding the incident had been conflicting, and took issue with their pursuit of de Menezes for an extended period and their allowing the "suspected suicide bomber" to board a bus. "Why did they let him get on a bus if they are afraid of suicide bombers?… He could have been running, but not from the police… When the Underground stops, everybody runs to get on the train. That he jumped over the barriers is a lie."[18]

The Brazilian government released a statement expressing its shock at the killing, saying that it looked forward "to receiving the necessary explanation from the British authorities on the circumstances which led to this tragedy." Foreign Minister Celso Amorim, who had already arranged to visit London, said he would seek a meeting with the UK's Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw. He later met ministers and had a telephone conversation with Straw.

The Muslim Council of Britain expressed immediate concern about the apparent existence of a "shoot-to-kill" policy and called on police to make clear their reasons for shooting the man dead.

Public reaction

The reaction of the British public to the shooting was mixed. While some sympathised with the need for the police officer in question to make a split-second decision, and saw it as a case of collateral damage, others condemned the killings as an example of police brutality.[19]

The reaction of the Brazilian public was overwhelmingly negative. Protests and demonstrations were held in Brazil,[20] and some Brazilian commentators noted that incidents such as de Menezes' killing are more typical of a developing country such as Brazil than a developed nation like the UK.[21] The level of Brazilian protest raised criticism with some British commentators who noted that extra-judicial executions by the police in Brazil are far from rare. Others questioned whether the United Kingdom should use this standard to justify its own failing in this instance.

A vigil at Stockwell Station was held with some of the relatives on the Sunday immediately following the shooting and police apology. Another, called by the Stop the War Coalition, was held on the 25 July. They state that a thousand people attended and then several hundred people, led by a group of Brazilians (some of whom had been friends with Jean Charles), began an impromptu demonstration. When they approached Westminster they were stopped and turned back by police at Vauxhall Bridge, the location of the MI6 building.[22]

On 23 August 2005 Dania Gorodi, whose sister Michelle Otto was killed in the 7 July 2005 London bombings, asked for an end to the criticism of Sir Ian Blair over the de Menezes shooting, which she felt had moved the media focus away from the bombings. "People have lost sight of the bigger picture," she said. "We need to support the police right now, not crucify one man. This is unprecedented in British history. He [Sir Ian] is doing the best he can."[23]

When on 12 September 2006 the Metropolitan Police Authority promoted Commander Cressida Dick to the role of Deputy Assistant Commissioner, the family said they were "absolutely disgusted".[24]

Independent Police Complaints Commission inquiry

Several days after the discovery of the mistaken shooting, it was announced that the incident would be subject to an internal investigation by officers from Scotland Yard's Directorate of Professional Standards and would be referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), as is the case with all fatal police shootings.

In the hours immediately after the shooting, Commissioner Sir Ian Blair telephoned the Chairman of the IPCC and wrote a letter to the Home Office stating that "the shooting that has just occurred at Stockwell is not to be referred to the IPCC and that they will be given no access to the scene at the present time." The Commissioner's intent, according to the letter later released by the Met under the Freedom of Information Act, was to protect the tactics and sources of information used in a counter-terrorism operation from public disclosure.[25]

Controversy between the Met and IPCC

On 18 August, lawyers representing the de Menezes family met with the IPCC and urged them to conduct a "fast" investigation. After the meeting the lawyers, Harriet Wistrich and Gareth Peirce, held a press conference where Ms. Peirce stated: "This has been a chaotic mess. What we have asked the IPCC to find out is how much is incompetence, negligence or gross negligence and how much of it is something sinister."[26]

On 18 August, the IPCC issued a statement in which they alleged that the "Metropolitan Police Service initially resisted us taking on the investigation".[27] They also announced that the inquiry was expected to last between three and six months. Initial press reports indicated that the inquiry was not handed over until 27 July,[28] though the IPCC itself announced it took over the inquiry on 25 July.[29]

In May 2006, the Metropolitan Police Federation released a 12-page statement which was highly critical of the IPCC in general, and specifically criticized the handling of the "Stockwell inquiry".[30]

Leak of inquiry

On 16 August 2005 British broadcast network ITV released a report said to be based on leaked documents from the IPCC investigation. The report conflicted with previous statements by Police Chief Sir Ian Blair.[31] The Metropolitan Police and the IPCC refused comment on the allegations while the IPCC investigation was ongoing, though an anonymous 'senior police source' claimed that the leak was accurate. Lana Vandenberghe, the IPCC secretary thought to be responsible for the leak, was suspended.[32]

The IPCC launched an investigation into the leaking of the documents. On 21 September Leicestershire Constabulary Serious Crime Unit initiated dawn raids on behalf of the IPCC on one Scottish and two London residential premises, at which time Vandenberghe was arrested. On 5 October two more dawn raids took place, during which ITN journalist Neil Garrett and his girlfriend were arrested.[33]

On 4 May 2006 the Leicestershire Police and the Crown Prosecution Service announced that no charges would be filed against Vandenberghe, Garrett or his partner.[34]

Stockwell 1

According to a press release made on 9 December by the IPCC's chairman Nick Hardwick and John Tate, its Director of Legal Services, the inquiry's report will list some of the criminal offences that the commission thought may have been committed by police. Though without having reached any conclusions, they also admitted the commission's judgement would be a "lower threshold" than the standard prosecutors would apply in making any final decision to prosecute.[35]

On March 14 2006, the IPCC announced that the first part of the inquiry, known as "Stockwell 1" had been completed and recommendations were passed on to the Metropolitan Police Authority and Crown Prosecution Service, but the report "[could not] be made public until all legal processes have concluded."[36]

The report was published on November 8 2007.[37]

Stockwell 2

"Stockwell 2", the second part of the inquiry, focuses on the conduct of Sir Ian Blair and Andrew Hayman following the discovery of de Menezes' identity, was released on 2 August 2007.[38] The allegations are that MPS officers "made or concurred with inaccurate public statements concerning the circumstances of the death. The alleged inaccurate information included statements that Mr de Menezes had been wearing clothing and behaving in a manner which aroused suspicions." (ibid.)

Brian Paddick

On 17 March 2006, the Met was threatened with legal action by Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Brian Paddick. In evidence to the IPCC, Paddick had stated that a member of Sir Ian's private office team believed the wrong man had been targeted just six hours after the shooting, contrary to the official line taken at the time.[39] When this information became public, Scotland Yard issued a statement that the officer making the claim (Paddick) "has categorically denied this in his interview with, and statement to, the IPCC investigators". The statement continued that they "were satisfied that whatever the reasons for this suggestion being made, it is simply not true." Paddick's interpretation of this statement was that it accused him of lying.[40]

After a statement was released on 28 March by the Met that it "did not intend to imply" a senior officer had misled the probe into the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, Mr. Paddick accepted the "clarification" and considered the matter closed.[41]

Revealingly, in a substantial campaigning Daily Telegraph interview (17 November 2007 - "I know how to make Londoners feel safe") which Paddick gave to support his suitability to become Mayor he addressed a matter that he would probably not have had in mind but for the death of Menezes. "Policing is a dangerous job, we should trust the professional judgement of officers on the front line. We shouldn't prosecute them or their bosses if they decide to put their lives on the line for the public".

Result of CPS investigation

In July 2006, the Crown Prosecution Service, which like the IPCC operates independently of the Metropolitan Police, announced that it would not carry forward any charges against any individual involved in the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes. The Metropolitan Police did, however, face charges under sections 3(1) and 33(1)(a) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 for "failing to provide for the health, safety and welfare of Jean Charles de Menezes".[42] The decision not to prosecute individuals was made on the grounds of insufficient evidence.[43] The family of de Menezes are appealing that decision in the High Court.[44]

The Metropolitan Police entered a not guilty plea to the charges, "after the most careful consideration".[45] The trial started on October 1 2007.[46]

On November 1 2007 The Metropolitan Police were found guilty of the above offences, and were fined £175,000, with £385,000 legal costs.[47] The Metropolitan Police published a terse release about this decision. [48] and Len Duvall, Chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority, asked that the full report on the investigation be published. [49]

Controversy over police procedure

Much discussion following the shooting centred on the rules of engagement followed by armed police when dealing with suspected suicide bombers. Roy Ramm, a former commander of specialist operations for the Metropolitan Police, said that the rules had been changed to permit officers to "shoot to kill" potential suicide bombers, because a head shot is the only way to disable the bomber without risking detonating their explosives.[50]

The possibility of a police confrontation with a suicide bomber in the United Kingdom had reportedly been discussed following the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 in the United States. Based on this possibility, new guidelines were developed for identifying, confronting, and dealing forcefully with terrorist suspects. These guidelines were given the code name "Operation Kratos".[51]

Based in part on advice from the security forces of Israel and Sri Lanka — two countries with experience of suicide bombings — Operation Kratos guidelines allegedly state that the head or lower limbs should be aimed at when a suspected suicide bomber appears to have no intention of surrendering. This is contrary to the usual practice of aiming at the torso, which presents the biggest target. A successful hit to the torso may detonate an explosive belt.[52]

Sir Ian Blair appeared on television on 24 July 2005 to accept responsibility for the error on the part of the Metropolitan Police, and to acknowledge and defend the "shoot to kill" policy, saying:

"There is no point in shooting at someone's chest because that is where the bomb is likely to be. There is no point in shooting anywhere else if they fall down and detonate it."[53]

The Met's commissioner Sir Ian Blair, and his predecessor Lord Stevens, had expressed concern about the legal position of police officers who might kill suspected suicide bombers. There is no explicit legal requirement for armed officers to warn a suspect before firing, although guidelines published by the Association of Chief Police Officers say that this "should be considered". A potential suicide bomber is thought to represent a circumstance where warning the suspect may put the public at greater risk because the bomber may detonate his explosives after being warned.[54]

Lord Stevens defended the policy he introduced, despite the error that had been made. Azzam Tamimi of the Muslim Association of Britain was critical, saying: "I just cannot imagine how someone pinned to the ground can be a source of danger." Other leaders of the UK's Muslim community took a similar view. [55] Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, defended the police as having acted in the way they thought appropriate at the time, and with the aim of protecting the public.[56]

The Jean Charles de Menezes Family Campaign

Image:Jean charles de menezes shrine dec 06-2.jpg
Shrine to Jean Charles de Menezes outside Stockwell Underground Station

On 16 August 2005, the Jean Charles de Menezes Family Campaign, also known as "Justice4Jean", began calling for a public inquiry into the shooting. In 2005, the Justice4Jean campaign stated its aims as being to:

Languages
AD Links