First off, allow myself... to introduce myself. I probably don't align with the far left of the far left, some of whom are on dKos. My most basic principle is to be reality-based and logic-based, rather than elevating dogmas.
So my thoughts on the police killing in London don't come from some standpoint of being completely adverse to firearms or police, or even because I "hate America". I'm just looking at the facts and trying to be logical.
Consider these potential scenarios:
Scenario 1 (i.e. The Worst Case Scenario):
IF Mr. de Menezes was a terrorist, and he did have an explosive, and he was able to detonate it because he was not shot, THEN:
- Several dozen people would be dead or injured
- The officers involved, if they survived, would have their careers ruined
- The various Police Chiefs and other officials would be explaining to many people why this could not be prevented
- Britain would still need to deal with the problem of preventing other terrorist plots and cells
Scenario 2:
IF Mr. de Menezes
was a terrorist, and he
did have an explosive, but
he was shot, preventing an explosion THEN:
- Mr. de Menezes would be dead
- The officers involved would be lauded as heroes, promoted, etc.
- The various agencies might be able to track down other terrorists, based on Mr. de Menezes identity and papers on his person, etc.
- The vast majority of the public would shrug off the fact that the death penalty was applied for no infraction other than suspicious behavior
- Britain would still need to deal with the problem of preventing other terrorist plots and cells
Scenario 3:
IF Mr. de Menezes
was a terrorist, and
he did NOT have an explosive, but
he was shot THEN:
- Mr. de Menezes would be dead
- The officers involved would be lauded as heroes, promoted, etc.
- The various agencies might be able to track down other terrorists, based on Mr. de Menezes identity and papers on his person, etc.
- The vast majority of the public would shrug off the fact that the death penalty was applied for no infraction other than suspicious behavior
- Britain would still need to deal with the problem of preventing other terrorist plots and cells
Scenario 4 (i.e. Reality):
IF Mr. de Menezes
was NOT a terrorist, and
he did NOT have an explosive, but
he was shot THEN:
- Mr. de Menezes would be dead
- The various Police Chiefs and other officials would be explaining to many people why this could not be prevented
- A part of the public would shrug off the fact that the death penalty was applied for no infraction other than suspicious behavior
- Britain would still need to deal with the problem of preventing other terrorist plots and cells
Scenario 5 (i.e. The Best Case Scenario):
IF Mr. de Menezes
was NOT a terrorist, and
he did NOT have an explosive, but
he was subdued and NOT SHOT THEN:
- Mr. de Menezes would be alive
- The officers involved would find out why he ran
- Depending on how quickly they figured out that Mr. de Menezes had nothing to do with terrorism, the incident would probably warrant very little news mention locally, let alone internationally
- Britain would still need to deal with the problem of preventing other terrorist plots and cells
Even what little has been said by the PD other than "it's under investigation" shows that the officers trailed, confronted, and ultimately executed Mr. de Menezes based on a snap judgement that he was a terrorist with an explosive, with no more evidence than the fact that he lived in an apartment building 'linked' to the previous bombings, and was wearing an unseasonable sweater/jacket/coat.
The officers created the scenario with him jumping turnstiles, or whatever actually happened, when they chose to confront him based on this judgement. It's incorrect, as some have stated, to "blame the victim" for doing "the wrong thing" when 20 plainclothes officers start chasing you.
It makes me think that, 4 years on from 9/11, the various nations that claim to be most bold on the WOT really don't have one iota of a clue how to actually neutralize a terrorist plot before it "boards the train", so to speak; easier to just go through the motions of "cracking down", harassing and shaking people down, torturing or killing, lather rinse repeat, ultimately changing nothing in the overall landscape.
We can discuss further in the comments.
And finally, just for fun, replace "Mr. de Menezes" with Iraq, replace "was a terrorist" with "was linked to Al Qaeda", "explosive" with "WMDs", etc. The more I think about it, the more of a micro/macrocosm I see.