The shooting of Mr De Menezes, seven times in the head and once in the shoulder, provoked international concern over the Met's so-called shoot-to-kill tactics when dealing with potential suicide bombers in public places.
However, the IACP's report indicates widespread international agreement on dealing with new forms of terrorist threat. The president of Britain's Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), Chris Fox, and his Brazilian counterpart, Paul Roberto d'Almeida, both sit on the IACP's international policing steering committee.
The report carries detailed information how to identify and disable a suspected suicide bomber. Indicators of potential bombers include heavy clothing whatever the season, walking with an unusual gait or showing signs of irritability, sweating or tunnel vision, it says.
If lethal force is justified for stopping suspects, the guidelines state that the usual police tactic of shooting at the torso is inappropriate when dealing with suicide bomb suspects, in case the bullet detonates the explosive.
"Hence, if lethal force is justified, all shots should be aimed at a bomber's head - specifically, at the tip of the nose when facing the bomber, at the point of the ear canal from the side, or about one inch below the base of the skull from behind," the guidelines state.
Acpo consults internationally and takes on board policing guidelines produced by the IACP, a spokeswoman said today. Acpo's policies must fit into the UK's legal framework, she added.
Mr De Menezes, 27, was shot dead the day after four would-be suicide bombers tried to blow up three tube trains and a bus in London. He was tailed by Met officers with the aid of the newly formed special reconnaissance regiment, after he emerged from a south London property under surveillance in connection with the attempted attacks.
An inquiry has been set up to investigate the circumstances that led to the shooting amid conflicting reports about whether Mr De Menezes tried to flee when officers moved to arrest him. He had outstayed his visa by two years, the Home Office said last week.
Tony Blair and the Met commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, have both apologised for the mistake and police representatives have been negotiating compensation with the family of Mr De Menezes.
His killing provoked condemnation in Brazil. Julio de Souza, the mayor of Mr De Menezes' home town, Gonzaga, described the death as an "assassination". Over 6,000 mourners attended his funeral last week.
Acpo guidelines state that "police officers will shoot to immediately disable and remove the threat to their lives or those of other members of the public".
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/st|
ory/0,16132,1542743,00.html
Note: http://www.guardian.co....

No, I'm afraid if we are to live in a civilized society, we can't allow the police such power. Granted there is a greater risk of someone who might have a bomb detonating it, but on the whole, I don't think the policy is going to make much difference in that regard. Where it WILL make a lot of difference, is in whether we can still call ourselves a free society. Frankly, I'd rather take the chance of a terrorist bomb going off, killing me & my family, than having us live in a society where those in authority can shoot us without just cause. Suspicion, simply isn't just cause.
---
RickW
1) Where was this murdered electrician working in July 2005?
2)Is his murder connected to his work?
3)Why did the police/assassins allow him to get into a crowded place before they attacked him?
4)Why do the eye witness accounts of what happened not jibe with the assassins accounts of what happened?
These are just a few lines of inquiry which a proper investigation would take into account. We don't have proper investigations anymore because our authorities know everything. They tell us everyday that we will be attacked by "thus and so" and that it is inevitable. To enhance our security, they say, we must give up our freedoms. Why? Because it is our freedoms that the enemy hates? So, the enemy wins because our freedoms are taken away to protect us from those who hate our freedoms?
Sounds like the start of another psycho religion to me.
We have to decide whether we want laws that apply to everyone equally or do we want an ad hoc kangaroo court run by the ruling class. Is our new creed to be "Do unto others before they do unto you, and keep doing unto them so that they won't ever be able to do unto you"?
All this actually has me yearning for the good ol days when Bush was governor. At least in Texas people get a trial before they get sentenced to death, even though in some cases people are still found to be innocent after the fact. This poor guy in London didn't even get that much, not even a sham of justice, before the police killed him.
Tell me, when did we start making decisions based on fantasy rather than facts and evidence? Since when did we give police the right to kill people for hypotheticals? Since when did it become "guilty until proven innocent" instead of the other way around? "Shoot first, ask questions later" is also a lousy way of getting any information.
Ultimately, the potential for abuse is just too great. Anybody heard about the experiment where they had regular people act as prison guards and prisoners--which had to be shut down because the abuses of power became dangerous to the people involved?? It's starting to feel like the whole world is now involved in that experiment.
And as others have pointed out, it means that we ALL face the possibility that if we act "suspicious" we get shot in the head 7 times. Or shipped off to Syria for torture. Or to Guantanamo Bay.
THAT is terrifying to me.
---
"When I told him about class warfare, he asked if we did it in JellO."--translation/paraphrase, The Candidate, CBC
---
"When I told him about class warfare, he asked if we did it in JellO."--translation/paraphrase, The Candidate, CBC