Shooting of innocent man a setback, say British press

LONDON – The shooting by British police of a seemingly innocent Brazilian man was the tragic outcome of ultra-tight security following two sets of bomb attacks in London inside a fortnight, newspapers said yesterday.

The previous day, police announced that a man shot dead in front of passengers on a subway train, whom they had feared was another suicide attacker, had no connection to the bombers. He was named later as Jean Charles de Menezes (27).Menezes’s death was terrible, the News of the World said, but it came about because four suicide bombers blew themselves up on July 7, killing another 52 people, followed by a botched attempt to copy the attack two weeks later.The shooting was “a tragedy”, the tabloid said.”But it is vital that this should not distract anyone from from the single most important issue we face,” it continued.”For those are still the four deadly fanatics at large who are undoubtedly eager to maim and kill,” it said, referring to the four men who fled after their bombs appeared to fail on Thursday.”But there can be no question that the blame lies totally with the terrorists of 21/7.Only they have his blood on their hands.”Witnesses said Menezes ran away from plain-clothes police when they challenged him at the Stockwell Underground station, before being cornered in a train carriage where an officer shot him five times in the head.Police said the Brazilian had been seen leaving a house linked to the bombers and that his heavy coat, worn on a summer day, prompted fears he was concealing explosives.The Sunday Times said: “If the police are operating a shoot-to-kill policy against suspected suicide bombers, they have to be sure of their targets.””No one doubts that the police are under severe pressure and at great personal risk as they track down would-be suicide bombers in our midst,” The Observer said.”So they have nothing to fear in disclosing to a supportive public what happened at Stockwell and in what circumstances armed police are licensed to use their weapons.”If the menace threatening the police, and us, necessitates shooting without warning, we are entitled to know the rules under which they are operating.”The Mail on Sunday noted that shooting to kill was required if a target was feared to be carrying explosives.”If he is wounded he can massacre in his final seconds of consciousness,” it said.”In the London of July 2005, few would want the police to take any chances.He was named later as Jean Charles de Menezes (27).Menezes’s death was terrible, the News of the World said, but it came about because four suicide bombers blew themselves up on July 7, killing another 52 people, followed by a botched attempt to copy the attack two weeks later.The shooting was “a tragedy”, the tabloid said.”But it is vital that this should not distract anyone from from the single most important issue we face,” it continued.”For those are still the four deadly fanatics at large who are undoubtedly eager to maim and kill,” it said, referring to the four men who fled after their bombs appeared to fail on Thursday.”But there can be no question that the blame lies totally with the terrorists of 21/7.Only they have his blood on their hands.”Witnesses said Menezes ran away from plain-clothes police when they challenged him at the Stockwell Underground station, before being cornered in a train carriage where an officer shot him five times in the head.Police said the Brazilian had been seen leaving a house linked to the bombers and that his heavy coat, worn on a summer day, prompted fears he was concealing explosives.The Sunday Times said: “If the police are operating a shoot-to-kill policy against suspected suicide bombers, they have to be sure of their targets.””No one doubts that the police are under severe pressure and at great personal risk as they track down would-be suicide bombers in our midst,” The Observer said.”So they have nothing to fear in disclosing to a supportive public what happened at Stockwell and in what circumstances armed police are licensed to use their weapons.”If the menace threatening the police, and us, necessitates shooting without warning, we are entitled to know the rules under which they are operating.”The Mail on Sunday noted that shooting to kill was required if a target was feared to be carrying explosives.”If he is wounded he can massacre in his final seconds of consciousness,” it said.”In the London of July 2005, few would want the police to take any chances.