Britology Watch: Deconstructing \’British Values\’

2 November 2007

Menezes Killing: Why is no one talking about shoot-to-kill?

In yesterday’s and today’s coverage on the Metropolitan Police’s guilty verdict for ‘health and safety’ violations over the killing of the innocent Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes [there’s got to be some sort of grim irony that they were done on health and safety, of all things!], no one seems to have raised the question of whether the security forces’ shoot-to-kill policy towards people they suspect of being on the point of committing a terrorist outrage needs to be re-examined. There was much discussion on this theme in the immediate wake of the blunder. But it’s all gone silent now. Why?

Let’s think about it logically. One of the justifications made by the police for their delayed attempts to stop suspects under observation, such as Menezes in this instance, is that it’s operationally important to follow where they go, who they link up with and what they do in order to gather vital intelligence and allow them to incriminate themselves. But effectively, in principle and definitely in practice, in Menezes’ case, this means waiting to intervene until the balance of certainty tips in favour of judging that the suspect really is on the point of doing something to threaten the lives of those around him. But if you wait until this point, you let a situation arise where, one way or another, something life-threatening is going to happen: either the terrorist blows himself up, or the security forces have to use force (shoot to kill) to stop him, and thereby endanger others in the same way that the suspect might have endangered them.

And what I don’t understand is why, even in circumstances where the security forces have deliberately left things effectively too late to avoid violence, they feel they have to use conventional bullets to bring things to a close. Aren’t there stun guns or tranquillisers that can be fired to have the same incapacitating effect? Surely, the whole point of acting in these situations is to prevent avoidable loss of innocent life. Isn’t it more consistent with this aim to use weapons that achieve the same effect without creating the result you’re trying to avoid?

For me, this sorry episode illustrates one of the ironies of the ‘war on terror’: that when the threat level is talked up and the climate of fear is heated up still further by the very people who are responsible for the public’s protection, this then justifies actions and engineers results that are precisely what the terrorists want. These consequences include the killing of innocent people; violent or unjust actions by the authorities towards suspected individuals or groups, particularly Muslims; a general clamp-down on civil liberties; and the creation of an atmosphere of terror, precisely, which is a win-win for the terrorists: either the government is pressurised into backing down from a particular position (e.g. the Spanish people after the Madrid bombings voting for a party that then withdrew Spanish forces from Iraq); or, on the contrary, the government is pushed into an attitude of defiance and hostility that whips up anti-Islamic sentiment and consolidates foreign-policy positions (e.g. support for the war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan), which the terrorists and their sympathisers can then use for anti-Western propaganda purposes and as a recruiting sergeant.

And the thing about Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police boss, is that he has consistently talked up the terror threat, which is clearly in part a tactic to condition the public into being more tolerant about mistakes and injustices that are committed in what Blair and others involved in the security effort still like to characterise as a war situation. In fact, Blair or one of his allies (I can’t remember which) was on about the extremely high ongoing terror threat only two or three weeks ago, just as the Menezes case was about to begin.

This is not to say that one should not feel sympathy for the police officers involved in incidents like this, who do have to make split-second decisions that will inevitably result in a limited number of mistakes. But surely, the tactics and the shoot-to-kill policy do need looking at: delaying interventions until shootings become ‘inevitable’ (but are they, even in these situations?).

But one also has to feel sympathy, in this case, for the innocent victim and his family. It was Blair’s duty to protect him as much as his officers and his own position. The more he goes on about the extreme circumstances and atmosphere of fear the police were operating under – which, to some extent, he’s been responsible for making worse through his careless talk – the more you sense that he’s not truly sorry for what happened. And if he’s not sorry, is he exercising a proper duty of care towards the public? And if he isn’t exercising this duty, should he still be in his job?



  1. I was in central London on the 21st July 2005 and felt huge relief that myself and my family got home safely on public transport following the failed bombing attempts. However, I felt panic knowing that terrorists intent on blowing us up were on the loose. This was a horrendous situation for everyone in London, including the police and other professionals. I abhor the possibility that there might be ‘trigger-happy’ armed officers in our police force, and I think that the death of Menezes is a tragedy. His killing was a dreadful mistake and I’m sure there are lessons to be learned – employing stun-guns or similar, more training for such contingencies – there always are lessons to be learned in hindsight from new situations. However, I want to say that I personally feel SAFER not less safe from what I have learned about how the police tried to keep Londoners safe from a further terror attack and for that reason I don’t think Sir Ian Blair should have to resign.

    Comment by Karen Chessell — 2 November 2007 @ 7.01 pm | Reply

  2. Ms Cressida Dick appears not to be able to tell a terrorist from an innocent man. For those who hadn’t noticed, the death penalty has been restored – only it’s now called ‘shoot to kill’. Our lords and masters no longer have to waste time on a trial, or to bother with inconvenient things like ‘evidence’ or having to prove guilt ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. You see, under the creeping europeanization of our legal system via Corpus Juris, we are no longer innocent until proven guilty. We now have to prove our innocence – just look at the McCanns in Portugal!

    However, the appropriately named Ms Dick is not so innocent herself. Have a look at information emerging in the blogosphere about the shadowy organisation called , of which she is a senior member. If this is not enough to convince you that something is very rotten in our institutions, I urge you to watch this <a href=”″video on Vimeo (the one on YouTube has mysteriously vanished). [Let it load, and then move the slider along to about 11:00 minutes from the start.] It is long, but bear with Brian Gerrish – his expose of what they are up to is forensic.

    Comment by Vlad the Impaler — 2 November 2007 @ 7.09 pm | Reply

  3. Oh, sod the href’s.

    Common Purpose:

    Brian Gerrish video – start at 11:00 minutes from the beginning:

    Comment by Vlad the Impaler — 2 November 2007 @ 7.12 pm | Reply

  4. “And what I don’t understand is why, even in circumstances where the security forces have deliberately left things effectively too late…”

    It wasn’t a matter of leaving things too late. The whole operation was a total organisational shambles. There were no clear lines of control and you had no-one who appeared to be in command.

    Before Jean Charles de Menezes was killed at the end of the “operation” the police involved had degenerated into a mob of hyped up gunmen who had decided with no clear information or authority that de Menezes was a bomber and they were going to shoot him.

    If there had been any command and control at all among the “elite” of the British police then there would have been a clear set of orders to shoot or not to shoot and a clear procedure to identify the man they were tailing. Simple questions which would have allowed some analysis of the risk de Menezes posed seem to have been unasked. Was there a positive identification? Was he carrying a bag? Did he have a large bulky coat on?

    The training in how to deal with suspected suicide bombers has been heavily influenced by the Israeli forces where shooting the wrong Palestinian is just one of those things. These however, were British police operating in Britain but the same “who cares” philosophy was present here.

    The police who shot Jean Charles de Menezes shot him without any clear identification or any clear orders to shoot. They were essentialy rogue and should stand trial for his murder as should the senior officers who were as useful as a chocolate teapot in controlling and directing the whole sorry mess.

    If Iain Blair had any shred of decency he would resign now for the total failure of his force to even resemble a professional organisation.

    What this whole episode has proved is that the police can kill at will and get away with it as long as their defence is that they thought they were doing the right thing.

    Comment by Dougthedug — 4 November 2007 @ 12.18 am | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: