Talk:Visa of Brazilian killed in London reportedly expired two-years ago

I'd urge caution on this one. It was initially reported that the guy was wearing a heavy puffer jacket, that he was carrying some kind of "bomb belt" with wires coming out of it, that he failed to stop after a police warning, and that he vaulted the ticket barriers at Stockwell. It's subsequently been reported that he was wearing a light jeans jacket, that no police warning was given and that he passed through the barriers using a (valid) travelcard, and of course there was no bomb belt:

 Rcameronw 09:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * First up, it's worth pointing out that the Guardian is heavily biased to the left. Second, who are you going to believe - eyewitnesses, and there must have been many in a busy tube station - or a sister who feels her brother was murdered, speaking after a private talk with police where we cannot verify what was said?


 * It's the same ol' same ol', really. Officers are always removed from active duty after a shooting - standard procedure. And the ACPO firearms guidance has always said shoot to kill (and "aim for the CNS" - which of course, includes the head) - it's not new, it's just that the media have finally noticed it. Dan100 (Talk) 11:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure it's accurate to describe the Guardian as "heavily biased", but maybe these things are in the eye of the beholder. [If you don't believe the Guardian, there's a similar story in the Times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1711303,00.html]


 * I say this very sincerely: it requires a severe lack of objectivity to consider the Guardian un-biased. Maybe one doesn't notice it when they agree with their politics.


 * Fair point - though of course disagreeing with the statement "the Guardian is heavily biased" doesn't necessarily entail that one thinks they (or indeed any other news source) are entirely un-biased, all of the time! And of course there's a difference between having political views and distorting the facts to fit those political views. I see no evidence that the Guardian has distorted the facts in this particular instance, not least because other news sources like the Times are reporting the same facts in broadly the same way.

Rcameronw 10:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Aside from that, though, there is an ongoing controversy over the facts of the case. 1. Was it true, as one of the passengers initially reported, that Menezes was wearing a belt with wires coming from it? 2. Did Menezes vault the ticket barriers, as initially reported? 3. Was he wearing a bulky jacket, as initially reported? 4. Did the police identify themselves before opening fire?


 * Several of the claims initially attributed to eyewitnesses either contradict each other, or have since been discredited. Of course Menezes' sister is coming at this from a particular POV, but does this necessarily mean her statements should be dismissed out of hand?


 * Given that several of the facts initially reported by the authorities have also been called into serious doubt, it seems sensible to reserve judgement over the truth of the claim that Menezes' visa stamp was forged, rather than merely reporting it as a fact. (It wouldn't be the first time that our government had told us things that turned out not to be true.) The man investigating the shooting has made a related point in today's Daily Mail:

Rcameronw 12:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * There's a useful outline of the controversy on wikipedia:

Rcameronw 13:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Please note that many of the original allegations in this "article" as well as those mentioned and questioned above in this Talk page, have now been discredited. In particular:

Menezes did not run at any stage, he was never challenged, he did not jump the turnstiles at the tube station, but actually used his Travelcard, he was calm at all times, he was sitting when the armed police entered his carriage, he did not have a heavy jacket, he did not have a bag of any kind, he did not have a belt with wires. This is all spelt out in this step-by-step BBC news animated guide to what actually happened, from the day the trial concluded:

Finally, it is certainly not clear that he was in the country illegally, see for example this Telegraph article where Jack Straw is quoted and the facts are laid out:

128.232.110.69 02:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

What's the name of the killer(s) ?
I'm a bit curious as to why we don't know who(names) the shooter(s) is/are. Maybe that's usual for Britain(not to know)? Will we ever know? when will we know?..I'd like to see some background on this/these killer(s) before the story grows cold. Paulrevere2005 12:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it's probably normal that at this stage of the inquiry their identities would be protected. If you're interested, you might want to keep an eye on the IPCC website: http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/; they're the people conducting the investigation (as Dan points out, this is standard procedure in all cases of fatal police shootings). If, as in some past cases, the IPCC concludes that the officers acted improperly, then (I think) they would normally be identified at that stage. If, on the other hand, the IPCC finds that they acted properly but had been badly trained/briefed, then they might never be identified personally, although officers further up the chain probably would be. I'm personally quite hopeful that the inquiry will be fair and thorough, though it's such an unusual set of circumstances that it's hard to know for sure how things will play out. Rcameronw 11:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)