Policing and its consequences

Proponents of 'hard-headed' policing lose sight of the moral difference between what is done to us a

By Martin O'Neill Published 05 November 2007

On 22 July 2005, Brazilian electrician Jean Charles de Menezes had seven bullets pumped into his brain by a plain-clothes police officer at Stockwell Underground station. De Menezes was an innocent man, travelling to work, who was killed suddenly and brutally, in public, by the representatives of a democratic state.

This kind of policing disaster raises important questions of principle. It is deeply shocking when incidents of this sort take place in the mundane and familiar surroundings of a London tube train, and we need to get our thinking straight about the implications of what happened.

There are broadly two views of how the police should respond to the terrorist threat. To put things in a fairly crude way, the division between the two corresponds to a familiar division between different ways of thinking about freedom and security.

The first kind of view is self-avowedly hard-headed and prides itself on being realist. On this view, the chief responsibility of the police is to safeguard the bodily security of citizens. If this can only be done through increasing police powers (whether by extending the entitlement to detention without charge, or relaxing the rules on the use of firearms) then so be it.

Even if some members of the public – like De Menezes – are put at risk by more aggressive forms of policing, this is a price worth paying as long as the long-run aggregate level of personal security is increased. On this hard, realist view, the occasional terrible accident, such as the De Menezes killing, is a price worth paying if it reduces the threat from terrorists.

The second sort of view takes a less consequentialist position, and denies that the police should be there to protect our security by any means necessary. Instead, this view sees the police as being under very particular kinds of constraints when they operate in democratic countries such as ours. On this view, rights trump considerations of aggregate security, and we should not (for example) extend detention without trial, or relax restrictions on the police use of firearms, even if the result of this is that more people will be killed by terrorists.

Holders of this second view are condemned by the ‘hard-headed realists’ for being impractical idealists who simply refuse to confront the terrible reality of the threat posed by terrorism to our way of life.

There is a particular kind of error lurking in the hard-headed realist position, insofar as it suggests that all that we should care about are consequences, and that almost any course of action that makes us safer is thereby justifiable. What this sort of view misses is that we care about how outcomes are brought about and by whom as much as we care about end results. There is an enormous difference between falling victim to a terrorist attack and being killed by the agents of the state in which one lives.

Life in open democratic societies is risky, and among those risks is that of being attacked by those who want to cause damage and suffering to such societies. Insofar as we care about preserving an open and free way of life, the risks of terrorism (although reducible) are surely ineradicable; but they are something that are imposed, unjustly, on us by others.

What is so terrible about the De Menezes case is that his death was not caused by some alien, external threat. It was carried out by an agency of the state; something done "in our name", through our institutions. The mistake made by extreme versions of the ‘hard-headed realist’ view of policing is to think it appropriate to care only about numbers of deaths or injuries. It loses sight of the difference between what is done to us and what we ourselves collectively decide to do.

A surprising proponent of the ‘realist’ view is London’s mayor, Ken Livingstone. Following the conviction of the Metropolitan Police for breaching health and safety laws in the De Menezes case, Livingstone said the court's verdict was "disastrous" for anti-terrorist police. Livingstone’s claims are worth investigating, not least in how (perhaps surprisingly) he seems to avow a rather crude version of the ‘realist’ view.

As he put it: “If an armed police officer believes they are in pursuit of a terrorist who might be a suicide bomber and they start making these sort of calculations based on, ‘How's this going to be seen... am I going to be hauled off to court?... At the end of the day, mistakes are always going to happen in wars or situations like this. The best you can do is to try and make the potential risks the minimum possible.”

This perplexing judgement has a number of problems. Firstly, it’s very odd to suggest that we would not want police officers to ask themselves "How’s this going to be seen?", or to worry about their legal position, when they’re thinking of shooting someone who might be a suicide bomber. If someone might be a suicide bomber, then presumably they also might not be.

Shots should be fired by those who act in our name only gravely, as a final resort, and with awareness of the seriousness of what is being done. To suggest otherwise is highly troubling.

Yet, secondly, Livingstone’s rather less than cautious approach is amplified by his choice of metaphor – “mistakes,” he tells us, “are always going to happen in wars or situations like these.”

But precisely what is at stake is whether the situation we find ourselves in, with regard to the terrorist threat, does put us in something analogous to a war situation, where it is worth sacrificing some of the central features of our way of life for the preservation of our society in the long term. One does not downplay the significance and awfulness of terrorist attacks to deny that our situation is analogous to a war situation. And, if we’re not at war, one should not be so ready to cast aside the rights and protections of a democratic society.

Lastly, Livingstone’s final claim seems to encapsulate the errors of a crudely consequentialist approach to the ethics and politics of anti-terrorist policing. It is simply not true to say that “the best you can do is to try and make the potential risks the minimum possible”, both because some risks can only be reduced at the price of an unacceptable erosion of rights and liberties, and because it is a distorting over-simplification to weigh the risks that we face from others (e.g. the terrorists) and the risks we impose upon ourselves (e.g. through the way in which our police forces operate) as if they were all of the same kind.

What we do to ourselves, and what is done in our name, has a moral significance that goes well beyond that which is merely done to us, and Livingstone’s remarks miss this crucial difference.

View the discussion thread.

11 comments

Wed, 2007-11-07 15:33 — jeremylundgr13

Forgive me if i'm missing the point of the article (and especially the feedback), but O’Neill presents a worrying dichotomy. In his view, we either have draconian police powers and stay relatively safer or we don't and get periodically bombed. Perhaps better treatment of muslims as a whole and less expeditionary interventions in the middle east would keep us safer. I for one cannot remember any muslim terrorist attacks in the UK before the Iraq war.

And no, Lockerbie was an attack on 1) America and 2) cannot be defined in the context of the fictional "war of terror".

Wed, 2007-11-07 17:24 — VC

PlanetStardollars

Who is doing the bombing Mr PlanetStarbucks? OK, here`s an easier question; If some Muslim chaps are being setup, or are just foolishly laying themselves open to exploitation...who is behind the bomb attacks?

As I`ve said, the previous head of MI5 claimed there were 2000 people in the UK engaged in terrorist activity...the new head of MI5 also claims there are still 2000, but claims this is an increase of 400 on the year...which is it???

I`ll say it again...this was said as a statement of fact, but they are still free to walk the streets of Britain. We have just been messaged that children as young as 15 are being recruited as terrorists....where is the evidence....where are the arrests and prosecutions?? It is climed that this recruitment is taking place on the internet.lol

Next year MI5 will role out the same modified script and claim 12 year olds are being recruited as terrorists....how long before its babies in the womb???lol

People have got wake up and realise the war on terrror is a US/UK/Israeli construct.

Mon, 2007-11-05 14:12 — Petite Anglaise

In my opinion, the De Menezes killing was American policing come to London - as part of Britain's willingness to coalesce with any American way of thinking. Please remember that Americans always shoot first and think later - or preferably not think at all. Unless we curb the menace that such thoughtlessness represents, then we are going to see a whole lot more collateral - and the terrorists will have won the war without spilling a drop more innocent blood themselves.

Mon, 2007-11-05 15:56 — VC

Mr O`Neill, you are doing a rather simplistic hatchet job..."you are with us, or against us". In the US, anti war protesters are openly slated as terrorists. All you are doing Mr O`Neill is reinforcing two extreams.

Most of the public have been "brianwashed" into thinking they need protecting, so its a given that a majority will back NWO policing in jack-boots.

Mr Menezes was not just an ordinary member of the publc...an unfortunate victim. Look at the the well used media picture of Menezes, you are using the same picture above...does he look like an electrician when it was taken? He looks like he in the military or police.

The other day Channel 4 News quoted Cresida Dick "we muct stop him before he goes into the station"....how did Ms Dick know he was going into the station??????

Did the police/SIS have a profile of Menezes before the day he was murdered?? You see, I find it rather hard to believe that Dick would know he was following a regular route without previous surveilance and as I suspect, they already knew about Menezes and in that case, he would have been known to everyone in the surveilance team. As many members of the public have pointed out, Menezes could have been stopped much earlier.

There was a male witness who was in the carriage when the execution took place. He stood outside Stockwell tube station, he said there were 8, or 9 shots fired...the police did not expect such a good witness to come forward. This witness was imediately destroyed by a police statement which said that only 5 shots were fired....we are now told that 7 shots were fired....the witness was much nearer the alledged truth. In the first hour after the murder, the police found the need to tell lies. In the next carriage was a journalist, she gave her statement to the IPCC, when she read it through, important evidence was omitted. The 7 shots took at least 21 second, now check just how long 21 second is...its a long time to watch someones head disintergrate. The journalist had to insist that her evidence be recorded...maybe they should drop the "I" in IPCC!lol

Then we have forging entries in a police log book and doctoring of police photofits!!!!lol

It gets worse...

...we are told that police shoot to kill squads were thin on the ground....or should I say, involved in more pressing threats to public safety, yet, there were at least "2" soldiers involved in the Menezes surveilance and we know that one was SAS....this takes planning, yet the men packing iron were nowhere to be seen??lol

One wonders at how the police/security services have managed to foil soooo many "ALLEDGED" terror plots.lol

Poor Sir Ian Blair. knowing he was going to be sacrificed on the NWO police state alter (lodge), in desperation, he recorded his boss....now thats what I call insurance.lol If only we come know what Blair recorded...some hope.lol

The witnesses in the carriage tell us a completely different account from the gun slingers. From witnesses, the MSM told us that Menezes was forced onto the floor, but in court, the police say he was shot while he was seated...all very strange.lol

It is my belief that Menezes may have worked as an electrician, but was either involved with some other nations spooks, or he had seen something he shouldn`t have and was thus hotwired into a regular police op so that he could be taken out.

As we have been messaged by the NWO controlled media, there are soooo many active terror cells in the UK...there are well over 2000 people who are engaged in terrorist activity....REMEMBER, this was stated as a STATEMENT OF FACT....yet, not one of these suspects has been shot....apart from an innocent man in Forest Gate....what a joke that one was...100`s of police crammed into a narrow street which alledgedly contained a bomb/chemical/bio factory....another serious breach in Health & Safety!lol

My father was a copper...I`d feel safer in a Mosque, than a coppers Christmas party. I have no faith in any part of the British establishment, what a way to feel.lol

Mon, 2007-11-05 22:48 — old.don

9-7-5 Puffa Jacket -jumping barrier - identified as terrorist. But why so many shots over 21 secs??? Panic, poor training? blood lust? Why do coppers volunteer for the "hit squad"? Is it too many yankee cop shows, where killing someone is a badge of manhood?
Surely we need independent psychiatrists to go in, interview and observe SO19, and extract those with dubious attitudes, or psychopathic tendencies?
Blair should go, if only for peddling the lies told him on day one!

Tue, 2007-11-06 13:05 — mitchy

I agree with everyone who has so far commented - this was state sanctioned murder, no bones about it. What I cant understand is why did Menezes have to be shot multiple times in the head? Surely, as news reports have indicated, his arms were allegedly pinned to his side by an officer, he would have been unable to detonate any explosive device he was carrying and non-lethal methods could have been used to incapacitate him instead. I'm sure a taser (not strictly non-lethal I know, but less so than half a dozen bullets in the brain) or some other such method could have been used instead of simply murdering the man in public.
As Cybertiger has pointed out, I think this is just another worrying indication of the continued Americanisation of our culture. While there are many things I like about the US, and I am not anti-american, I think we can well do without their psychopathic gun culture in the UK.

Tue, 2007-11-06 13:15 — NatO

"Mr Menezes was not just an ordinary member of the publc...an unfortunate victim. Look at the the well used media picture of Menezes, you are using the same picture above...does he look like an electrician when it was taken? He looks like he in the military or police. "

In order to obtain a visa to enter a country such as the UK, you need to provide a passport-type photo. These must conform to certain rules regarding facial expression, resulting in a picture somewhat resembling a "mugshot". I suggest it is likely one of these that has been used, not some secret service / military id photo as Mr Jones seems to imply.

Tue, 2007-11-06 14:39 — Douglas Chalmers

It was an EXECUTION! Command and control "policing" unwound to its most irrational - shoot first, ask questions later, uhh. Otherwise known as murder.......

It is obscene for Martin O’Neill, a political philosopher from some putrid think-tank, to make the judgement by way of an oblique argument for us that "this is a price worth paying" for personal security!

No could such an action ever " reduce the threat from terrorists". This is exactly what happens when there are no "constraints" on police. Ask the Russians in Moscow how their hostages fared when being 'released' from terrorists.

In case nobody has noticed, Metropolitan Police have breached more than mere "health and safety laws". And, according to London’s mayor, Ken Livingstone, De Menezes might have been a suicide bomber simply because he boarded a train.

‘How's this going to be seen... am I going to be hauled off to court?.. is not a procedural question to be avoided as much as some would like it to be so that their every whim and action is wantonly justifiable. How the police would love to have the professional immunity of politicians and judges.....

Tue, 2007-11-06 14:42 — VC

NatO (very funny)

You make some good points, but he still looks military/police. At a guess, I`d say this pic was shot in Brazil and not in the UK, Its also black and white which is very un-UK.

Tue, 2007-11-06 15:21 — gnuneo

i seem to have a different version of the article from some of the above commentators, as it seems to me that mr o' neill is actually *criticising* the execution of de mendes, and not justifying it!

when the State can willy-nilly murder its own citizens (ignoring such things as the clear lieing, cover-ups, and other suspicious elements involved in this case), with barely even a slap on the wrist for the Officers of the Queen involved, then serious questions need to be asked about the direction, social and moral, that our society is heading in.

as mr o' neill states, there is a HUGE gulf between being killed by a rare terrorist event, that is by definition not morally acceptable in our democratic society, akin to being stabbed by the psychopath down the street, and being murdered by the Agents of the State who is supposed to be protecting us.

as the saying goes, tis a far better thing to err on the side of caution...

hopefully, livingstone will also get a slap on the wrist by the voters for this (and it *has* occurred to me that the article seems more to be attacking livingstone than the act itself, curious that really...), but with the bias in the media being obviously pro-giving the State more powers to slaughter us at its will to "defend our freedoms" (!), then that is debatable - unfortunately.

clean your act up ken, and to help, just imagine if thatcher could have gotten away with an "accidental" hit on a certain young politician in the GLC...

make you think? I hope so.