answered by the article.
Here's the description of the incident:
"The shooting occurred the day after the copycat attackers tried to bomb three other subway trains and a bus, but their bombs failed to explode. Plainclothes police officers staking out an apartment followed a man who emerged from it, then chased him into the Stockwell subway station and onto a train. The man tripped, and one of the officers in pursuit fired five rounds."
They followed him, they chased him, they shot him. It does not say whether or not they identified themselves as police.
This bit from the cousin doesn't either:
"Another cousin, Aleide Menezes, said in an interview with Brazil's national radio network that Mr. Menezes understood English well and would have understood the officer's instructions."
It says that he would have understood instructions, not that they gave them.
This bit is the most disturbing:
"Normally British police officers are under orders to give ample warming and, if they have no choice but to open fire, to aim to wound. However, according to London's mayor, Ken Livingstone, that has given way to a shoot-to-kill policy in some circumstances."
The way this parses, shooting to wound AND ample warning have been supplanted by shoot-to-kill in cases where the suspect is believed to be a suicide bomber. That could just be due to poor writing, but it needs clarification.
It's possible that the police never identified themselves.
I'm going to have to wait for that aspect to be made clear before I can judge this. |
