OK. So the London police shot dead a man they believed was involved in some sort of terrorist action. The public in general all went to defend the cops side. "Well, we are dealing with terrorists so that's what we should do." All right. So now let's suppose, just suppose, an Englishman was walking down a street in Rio, which today is not so different from London considering the violence that's been going on in England's capital, and 20 Brazilian cops shot him dead with seven bullets right into his head for "thinking" he was involved in the drug traffiking. What would you English people feel about the Brazilian police force? That just gives you a quick glimpse into how we are feeling right now. Violence will never justify violence. An eye for an eye was used thounsands of years ago. Use your intelligence.
Alexandre Costa, Florianopolis, BrazilI have no doubt that the inquiry into the shooting of the Brazilian electrician will be a harrowing experience for all. But how much more harrowing would an inquiry be into a successful bombing, killing and injuring many, where the Police evidence was: "We hesitated to shoot until we were absolutely sure and in that split second, he detonated the bomb"? Rob Harris, Dalian, China
People are getting hysterical. To support this policy is extreme cowardice. People's irrational fear of the "enemy" has them willing to give police the arbitrary right to execute innocent people on a train. Disgusting. Name and address withheld
The "accidental" shooting of the Brazilian man makes me think how difficult time is this in London and in the UK. During history, the British police has always been an example to the whole civilized world. I hope things stay this way. Eduardo de Lima Veiga, Porto Alegre, Brazil
It is not uncommon for police to shoot and wound or kill an unarmed man in this country, but he is legally, supposedly, given fair warning and told to give up first. The shooting of an unarmed innocent and legal Brazilian immigrant in a London subway appears to me to be the most heinous police crime I have heard about. Apparently, plainclothes policemen followed this fellow from his home for 20 minutes. If they had not identified themselves as policemen, but only yelled for him to stop, then he might well have thought his life was in danger from some thugs or robbers, which caused him to run for the subway entrance. If the police were serious about protecting the public they would have stopped him before he reached the subway entrance and searched him in an appropriate area. They themselves would have been at risk of an explosion, but not those in the close environment of the subway train. He could have been searched in the open at any time before entering the subway and found to be a non-bomber. This was a police murder on false pretenses and let us hope the full penalties of the law will fall upon those responsible. Mark Henderson, Nevada, USA
I think its wrong that people are saying that the police are acting like their American counter parts and are now trigger-happy. Have they forgotten what happened on the July 7? The police policy may be "shoot to kill" but it has only just become a policy due to the recent attacks. Would you rather that we had the police or the terrorists in control of the tube? Had this man respected our laws and listened to the police then he would not be dead. Perhaps it is therefore a good lesson to those in similar situations. John McAree, Paris, France
From the information I have read, Mr de Menezes left an address under surveillance, was followed and continued to arouse suspicion. His actions in leaping over the barrier at the tube station and not surrendering immediately compounded the police suspicions that he was a potential suicide bomber. In that situation a decision had to be made instantly. If the police had tried to restrain him in some way and he had detonated explosives within the tube train, the debate would now be about police inefficiency. Most of us are lucky enough to have jobs where decisions can be taken methodically and with consideration. Few of us are forced to make decisions affecting life or death. I have every sympathy for the individual officers as I am sure they did what they felt was correct in that split second. I also feel for Mr de Menezes family who must be devastated by what has happened. However, demonisation of the police force is not the answer. The real villians of the piece are the terrorists themselves. This should not be forgotten, nor should the other victims from London, Egypt, Iraq and elsewhere. Jenny Ogilvy, Mosgiel, New Zealand
I want those who support the police action, to imagine themselves in the place of de Menezes. You are going to work (in a city that has been attacked by terrorists a week ago). When you are getting to the tube, some plainclothed men point their guns at you and tell you to stop. Wouldn't you think they were the terrorists? The police were trigger-happy murderers with a badge. João Carlos da Cunha Lima, Araruama, RJ, Brazil
I too was saddened to read of the death of what appears to be an innocent man. However, it would be too easy to simply pour scorn on the police involved. I object to the suggestion they are "bloody-thirsty", or "trigger-happy". In the wake of the two attacks on the London transport system, law enforcement offiicers are under intense pressure to stop any future tragedies by suicide bombers. Mistakes will happen as in the death of Mr de Menezes. If the police shot this man, there surely must be circumstances leading up to his death that would suggest he was acting suspiciously. If he failed to heed warnings, as the police have suggested, and he was running for the tube, this virtually gives the police no alternative in light of recent events. It is a horrific tragedy that his man died. But I have no qualms that the shoot-to-kill policy is the appropriate course of action when warnings are not heeded, and felt that way when I was in London in the wake of 9/11. Budhia Kiran, Auckland, New Zealand
Okay, so you need to shoot a suspect. But eight times? Philip Habib, Chertsey
I really do not understand some of what I am reading on this debate. It is a simple fact that had the man who was shoot in the tube done as the police asked, and instructed, he would not be dead. Shoot-to-kill is needed at such times as these, and i agree that the police need to explain themselves if they have to act on it. But it is clear from witnesses and CCTV that this man seemed to be a threat to the United Kingdom. His only error was not following a command by the police. The police have explained this, and for me they have no reason to change things. If you be interesting to hear what these people dead against shoot-to-kill would be saying now, if the police did not take this action, but could have, and it was a bomber, which killed hundreds of people. Andrew Walker, Bristol
In the UK we are in law all innocent until proven guilty. Within the EU, under the Human Rights laws, there shall be no death penalty by any means. The shoot-to-kill policy is therefore unlawful and the tradegy proves why we have laws for us all to comply with no matter what. Name and address withheld
Even by the usual standards of 20-20 hindsight, some of the comments here are pretty revolting. Have your US readers forgotten about Amadou Diallo, an unarmed man who died on his own front doorstep after being shot 41 times by New York police? And did the New York police produce a quick explanation and an offer of compensation? Not on your life. And Brazil? According to Amnesty International, 621 civilians were killed by police in the first six months of 2003 in Rio alone. The British police are mainly guilty of having extremely high standards, and of having had a tragic accident at a time of very high tension. John Livesey, Sunnyvale, CA, USA
