"Welcome to the UK, they shoot on sight without warning and claim it's necessary to kill suicide bombers before they blow up their bombs..... yet they let the bomber on the train and can't explain why they were sure enough to shoot without warning, yet not sure enough to let him get on the train.... and nobody is wrong, but a man is dead."
I'm actually believe that if you suspect a sucide bomber - and have good suspicion, such as being able to see the the bomb, or having correctly ID'd them - then I feel that you should shoot without warning. Give a warning an give the person time to blow themselves up?
Got to be joking, no way. The objective has to be to prevent them from blowing themselves up and killing people around them, so best course of action: no warning.
However, in the case of de Menes, the Police really screwed up big time, nobody carried out a positive ID of the target. And what's more, de Menezes wasn't carrying any kind of explosive device, so the Police officers that executed him didn't even eye him up and down properly to look for the presence of a bomb. ( ok, he might have been hiding the entire thing under his coat)
And the person leading the entire operation get's promoted, how's that right?
In my view, the Police officers already made the decision to execute him, if they hadn't, then there must have been a point in time where they did make the decision, so when was that?
When they saw him on the underground train? What caused them to make the decision that he needed to be executed, did they see the presence of a bomb ( no, obviously), did they carry out a threat assessment as they're supposed to do?
The fact (and I think we can safely assume it is fact now) that the Police officers lied at the inquest suggests a) they knew they'd done wrong, b) they were trying to cover something up.