Pizzas galore!

I grew up in America and experienced the shooting of two of my acquaintances so maybe I am more anti-guns than some. But I am horrified by the current situation. That this can not only happen, but actually be condoned is utterly horrifying. And for Ian Blair to say it may happen again is appalling. I left America partly to get away from a trigger-happy society and am physically sickened to see that once again the UK is following their lead. Guns do not save people. Ever. Francine Brody, London

If an ordinary person who was unarmed could have five bullets pumped into him as a police execution, then the terrorists have already achieved a victory. To fight terrorism we need to maintain our civil liberties and go about our lives without fear hanging over us. Jackson Martin, Philadelphia

It is unfortunate that some sectors of our society might begin to feel the fingers of suspicion pointing at them, and in a multicultural society is this surprising? I do not think so. After all, what is going to be the reaction of most people, in any form of public environment, when joined by an individual identifiably from one of those sectors, carrying a bag? Move away probably. Steven Hobley, Newton Abbot, Devon

It is about time the United Kingdom started to show terrorists and the world that we mean business and that we will use lethal force to protect ourselves. As with all wars there will be innocent victims, obviously that is regrettable. But we have a right to live in our own country without fear of being attacked by terrorists. I think that the police should be congratulated on this tough stance and we should remember why they have been forced into taking this action. People should quit complaining and come together to protect the country and support the police and armed forces in the difficult task that they have in protecting us. Steve Rothery, Fareham, Hants

In my opinion a "shoot-to-kill" policy is unacceptable. I encourage people to read Tim Hames's article about this subject. Mr Hames says Mr Menezes is another of the victims of July 7, but there is a big difference between being killed by terrorists and being killed by the police, in a way that no one should ever tolerate. Maria Galindo, Barcelona, Spain

This killing was, among other things, yet another failure of intelligence. 24 hours after he was shot, the police announce a lot of information about the victim, including his name, age, occupation, citizenship, residence status, etc. It can't have been that hard to find this information, so why couldn't they have found it out before they shot him? Could it be that they believed their own faulty intelligence and convinced themselves that he was guilty? Paul O'Riordan, Cape Town

It seems to me that a shoot-to-kill policy can only be contemplated if the police are positively, absolutely sure that the targeted person is a suicide bomber carrying a bomb ready to be detonated. No ifs, no buts, no maybes. We are now reading advice to the public on how to recognize a suicide bomber. If that policy is not tightened, we run the risk of seeing more innocent people being shot just for being sweaty on the Tube. Robert Marchnoir, Paris

Outraged though I am at the unnecessary death of Jean Charles de Menezes, I am yet more angered by the reaction of the police, the press and the public to this awful incident. Would the people who are happy to sacrifice his life in the war against terror be quite so supportive of the police's shoot-to-kill policy if they thought that they themselves, or their family, could be shot in the back of the head simply on the grounds of suspicion? Maybe a predominantly white public is safe, but will we really stand by and watch as the police make summary executions on our streets of anyone with darker-coloured skin, based on suspicions or incorrect intelligence? Duncan Rhodes, Beckenham, Kent

We should be very cautious in our reaction to the shooting of a man who was not a bomber. I cannot see that police can do otherwise than treat as a bomber a suspicious man who resists arrest and knocks people over in his desperation to get on a Tube. Heaven help us if an ill-informed backlash caused a police officer to hesitate next time and the man went boom. For Londoners, our safety may, to some small degree, be in our hands. Tom Renwick, London

It should not be a question of us and them, but a question of the greater good. I don't see that these new measures introduced by the government to "preserve our freedom" will in any way do this. I should not be afraid that I will be shot by police - under any circumstances. If we are to condemn those who committed the atrocities on the 7/7 then we must show by example that this is not the way we act. We have a legal system, people should not be sentenced without trial. Yet the anti-terrorism laws mean people can be locked up indefinitely without trial, and now people can be shot dead on the streets without trial, evidence or crime. Is this the freedom we want to preserve? James Riley, London

I feel safer with armed police on the beat and agree with shoot to kill policy. Accidents, tragic as they are, may occur but we cannot give benefit of doubt to someone who appears to be a bomber. Police have an unenviable job of making split second decisions on which our lives depend. Caroline Duchesne, Witney, Oxon

I do feel safer knowing that the police are prepared to act and put their own lives on the line to protect the public, and whether they make a horrible and tragic mistake, as they did in Stockwell, or succeed in averting a criminal act we should be content in the knowledge that protecting us from such evil is their prime concern. Ben Thursfield, Newcastle Upon-Tyne