London Police Rules of Engagement (1) - the Five Bullets

Tall, dark, handsome (he really was) and unfortunately very dead, Jean Charles de Menezes, a 27-year-old electrician living in London for three years, has been killed by British police who mistook him for a terrorist bomber.

London Metropolitan Police chief Sir Ian Blair accepted full responsibility for the fatal mistake and expressed regrets to Menezes’ family, but these polite correctness are of small comfort to them. How did this drastic event come about?

Let’s examine the case, in particular the British rules of engagement. Traditionally the British police have been very conservative, cautious and careful in its employment of firearms. Unlike its American counterparts some most British police don’t even carry guns. The old Malayan (not Malaysian) police was like its British tutor.

In the earlier and more peaceful days of my father, policemen outside the 'black areas' carried mainly truncheons. My father used to smirk at Thai and Indonesian policemen when he saw how heavily armed they were in comparison to Malayan law guardians. “Just like cowboys”, he would say. That has all changed today. Similarly, and especially in the wake of the London bombings, the rules of engagement for British police would have changed too. The person defining the rules of engagement would have to balance two competing objectives, the ability to use force effectively to accomplish the task and the need to avoid unnecessary force.

What has been disconcerting has been the report that the policeman pinned the poor innocent bloke down and pumped 5, not one, not two, but FIVE bullets into his head. I believed, given even the difficult circumstances the police would have been working under, that was way over the top.

Secondly, Menedes spoke and understood good English, as averred by his cousin and the fact that he stayed in london for 3 years, working as an electrician. He certainly would have understood police instructions in English very well. Another cousin stated that Menedes did not have a past that would make him run from police, thus the family finds it hard to believe Menedes ran when challenged by police, as alleged, as if he was a guilty man.

I heard on TV that one of the undercover policemen had been the one who killed him. Could it be that the cop in mufti did not identify himself as a policeman when he pointed a gun at Menedes, causing the victim to believe he was threatened by a criminal, thus resulting in his running away? Or, was the claim that Menedes ran away from a police challenge nothing more than a lie to cover up some gungho action by a trigger-happy policeman?

I find it hard to believe newspaper claim that the rules of engagement would have changed to a 'shoot-to-kill' policy in confronting suspected bombers. British (and indeed Australian and New Zealand) values don’t work like that a la American common practice. The British has had considerable experience with the equally ferocious IRA. While not denying themselves the ultimate right to 'shoot to kill', there would always be safeguards in the form of some stringent criteria being met and/or conditions being fulfilled.

To be continued with London Police Rules of Engagement (2) - the Israeli Connection