The coroner has instructed the jury on the de Menezes inquest that they cannot find that the unfortunate chap was 'unlawfully killed'
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article5273664.ece
I know that the family would prefer that everybody involved was flogged to death with lengths of acid dipped barbed wire, but it seems to me
ridiculous to suggest that it was anything other than a tragic mistake
John
Does it mean that he was lawfully killed them.
Mike
personally I think they should have been jailed
Who?
quote:
Originally posted by MikeLR
Does it mean that he was lawfully killed them.
Mike
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
Who?
Phew... I thought you were about to come away with something controversial, such as "all the police involved'!
The person who should be jailed is the senior policeman/policewoman who devised this method of dealing with suicide bombers.
Summary execution SHOULD be illegal for all. This case suggests that it's only illegal to kill without warning if you're a member of the
public. It's OK if you're a copper!
I can't think of any other way of dealing with them but the number of suicide bombers on the streets of Great Britain is so low that I'm
prepared to risk being blown up rather than risk another innocent mans life at the hands of our police force.
[Edited on 2/12/08 by JAG]
quote:
Originally posted by JAG
The person who should be jailed is the senior policeman/policewoman who devised this method of dealing with suicide bombers.
I can't think of any other way of dealing with them but the number of suicide bombers on the streets of Great Britain is so low that I'm prepared to risk being blown up rather than risk another innocent mans life at the hands of our police force.
What seems to be not mentioned was that his visa had expired and that he was in this country illegally. Had he abided by the law, then this wouldn't have happened to him.
Maybe these should come with a warning label –
‘DANGER! This clothing may be mistaken for a terrorist explosive device!!
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
quote:
Originally posted by JAG
The person who should be jailed is the senior policeman/policewoman who devised this method of dealing with suicide bombers.
I can't think of any other way of dealing with them but the number of suicide bombers on the streets of Great Britain is so low that I'm prepared to risk being blown up rather than risk another innocent mans life at the hands of our police force.
Hmmm... you do remember the hysteria at the time? London was being blown to smithereens and everyone was on edge.
Funny how these things get 'forgotten'!
PS - I'm pretty sure the H&S inquest already established there was no 'single' devised means of dealing with suicide bombers! The poor sods who pulled the trigger (repeatedly) thought they were dealing with a man who had a bomb wrapped round him! Pretty heroic (wether they shouted 'armed police' or not), but no... we forget this because we need to find fault and blame people!
Nope... The North Face jackets are perfectly safe.
It's the TKMaxx 'knife-jackets' that are the problem!
oh very cool, does he say different phrases when you pull the cord ? - 'giz ya money! cos it need ma fix!'
quote:
Originally posted by mr henderson
Totally agree. It absolutely baffles me why some people hate the police so much.
John
call that a knife?
this is a knife! 
No THIS is a knife!
Who would have thought under a labour government
A shoot to kill policy at the MET
Arrest of an opposition MP for whistle blowing
DNA data base even if you have done nothing wrong
Anti terror laws used against a friendly country ...Iceland
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Whippy
oh very cool, does he say different phrases when you pull the cord ? - 'giz ya money! cos it need ma fix!'
quote:
Originally posted by mr henderson
Totally agree. It absolutely baffles me why some people hate the police so much.
John
tbh dude can't say I have any love or respect for the police, been on the receiving end of some quite appalling behaviour from them a few times, wouldn't help them if they asked - The term 'bunch of animals' would be the first thing that pops in my head...
quote:
Originally posted by woodster
A shoot to kill policy at the MET
quote:
Originally posted by mr henderson
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Whippy
oh very cool, does he say different phrases when you pull the cord ? - 'giz ya money! cos it need ma fix!'
quote:
Originally posted by mr henderson
Totally agree. It absolutely baffles me why some people hate the police so much.
John
tbh dude can't say I have any love or respect for the police, been on the receiving end of some quite appalling behaviour from them a few times, wouldn't help them if they asked - The term 'bunch of animals' would be the first thing that pops in my head...
Well, I've had some bad experiences with some Sottish people, does that mean that every time I hear of an incident involving one or more Scots I should assume that they are to blame?
Which brings me on to the subject of that ex-squaddie who was allegedly beaten-up by officers and it was caught on camera.
The TV and press reported that one officer repeatedly punched the guy while others 'restrained' him. That's absolutely not what I
saw!
There were 3 officers - one had successfully placed his right arm behind his back. Another was struggling to get the left arm behind his back because
he was resisting. The third officer then punched the guy several times on the tricep / bicep area to weaken the muscle. The guy was then restrained
and handcuffed.
Absolutely text-book stuff and AS PER TRAINING!
So, it's not pretty to watch and ust because the general public at large doesn't llike the look of it, 3 cops are now facing prosecution.
What the hell for?
Certainly can't be for the manner of arrest!
Maybe there is dubiety surrounding the REASON for arrest (had he committed an arrest-able offence or not). I'e no idea, but the media
aren't raising that particular issue - they're just going on about the punches!
i see than most of the replies on here come from people who dont live in and near london.
believe me when all that lot was going on,and even now there are some dodgy looking people around and they got odd looks,people moving away like they
were lepers etc,i can see how it happened.
and what if he had been a bomber and 100 people had died because poor old pc plod had not pulled the trigger,what would people have said then?.
plod are in a no win situation and mistakes happen,he was unlucky.
i feel for pc plod and his family
In this case the police made an understandable mistake in difficult confused and desperate times times ----- the fact is in London even in a
terrorist alert the guy was a 100 less times likely to get shot by the police than in his home country in Rio or any of Brazils other cities. .
It is tough on his family but I can't help think that financial gain for some and political gain for others is the real motivation for all the
stir.
However the case about 10 yeares back of the scotsman shot and killed by the police for just carrying a chair leg a few years back is a different
matter in my eyes that was murder.
Likewise the equally innocent guy about 25 years or more back who was just quietly driving his yellow home one night and was stopped and shot about
a dozen times by the special branch and amazingly survived..
[Edited on 2/12/08 by britishtrident]
Ok some interesting points of view here
I don't hate the Police or the British Government but;
I do believe that this type of behaviour (shooting suicide bombers) is more likely to end in the death of an innocent man than in the death of a
terrorist.
It's simple odds - there are far more innocent men than there are terrorists. I would rather risk being blown up by a terrorist (because
they're pretty rare) than risk being shot by an armed response policeman (who are not as rare as terrorists).
On a slightly higher plane - I do not believe that 'the state' (that's any state not just the UK) should be able to kill anyone without
a fair trial no matter what they're suspected of.
I believe we are a 'hairs breadth' from this country becoming a Police state.
It's because most people seem to think that the only way to respond to terrorism is to tighten up on law and order and harrass you and I - the
innocent citizens.
The only way to deal with the problem is to engage them (terrorists) and discuss their problems and work towards solving them. Like we tried to do in
Northern Ireland - and Yes I know that's not really worked but you've got to try.
You CAN'T just keep shooting back - look how that's working for Israel and Palestine 
quote:
Originally posted by britishtrident
However the case about 10 yeares back of the scotsman shot and killed by the police for just carrying a chair leg a few years bag is a different matter in my eyes that was murder.
quote:
Originally posted by JAG
I believe we are a 'hairs breadth' from this country becoming a Police state.
quote:
Originally posted by JAG
The only way to deal with the problem is to engage them (terrorists) and discuss their problems and work towards solving them.
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
Which brings me on to the subject of that ex-squaddie who was allegedly beaten-up by officers and it was caught on camera.
The TV and press reported that one officer repeatedly punched the guy while others 'restrained' him. That's absolutely not what I saw!
There were 3 officers - one had successfully placed his right arm behind his back. Another was struggling to get the left arm behind his back because he was resisting. The third officer then punched the guy several times on the tricep / bicep area to weaken the muscle. The guy was then restrained and handcuffed.
Absolutely text-book stuff and AS PER TRAINING!
So, it's not pretty to watch and ust because the general public at large doesn't llike the look of it, 3 cops are now facing prosecution. What the hell for?
Certainly can't be for the manner of arrest!
Maybe there is dubiety surrounding the REASON for arrest (had he committed an arrest-able offence or not). I'e no idea, but the media aren't raising that particular issue - they're just going on about the punches!
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
quote:
Originally posted by woodster
A shoot to kill policy at the MET
It is (and always has been) a shoot to stop policy - not kill... there is an accepted logic that 'stopping' may result in 'killing'. Hence the popular misconception!
In the case of the firearms guys on the train that day - if they truly believed that they were dealing with a man who was strapped with explosives and was about to detonate, then shooting him repeatedly in the head (as unpalatable as that sounds) is pretty much the only sure-fire (no pun intended) was of 'stopping' him!
Sorry Woodster, but I didn't realise it said in the Terrorists Handbook that explosive devices MUST be carried in rucksacks, or worn under heavy
jackets!
quote:
Originally posted by britishtrident
On two occasions I have witnessed unprovoked assaults by the Police on parties I had no connection with.
I would have made an official complaint but I was 19 and was frightened of the trouble it would bring.
Lets make this clear these boys were beaten to pulp.
Some many people to quote, so little motivation to do it!
BT, im guessing (from your knowledge of old cars) that 19 was a long time ago for you! Things have changed, police assaults are rare.
I would also agree with the poster above, that the recent incident of the 3 cops punching a chap was absolutely acceptable to me. He was resisting
arrest, the punches served to deaden his arm which helps to get him cuffed.
Re Jean Charles, i feel that the police at the scene werent totally at fault for the death. Previous inquests/trials have pinpointed a catalogue of
mistakes. That bird who was in command should take the rap, the buck stops at the boss. If my employees kill someone it falls at my feet.
If the jury cannot return a verdict of unlawful killing, why bother with an inquest at all? It clearly wasnt lawful as there is no law that allows
summary exectution, so the verdict must be open.
I believe it was unlawful killing.
ah harry stanley,well known (to plod) armed bank robber
If Demenezes had been a bomber and was holding a detonation device in his hand shooting him would have resulted in an explosion! IMHO the police were
in complete cowboys and indians mode on that shout.
What is the point in a Jury trial if the obvious verdict is dissallowed. i would not be happy with that instruction if I was on the jury.
Caber
quote:
Originally posted by caber
If Demenezes had been a bomber and was holding a detonation device in his hand shooting him would have resulted in an explosion! IMHO the police were in complete cowboys and indians mode on that shout.
What is the point in a Jury trial if the obvious verdict is dissallowed. i would not be happy with that instruction if I was on the jury.
Caber
quote:
Originally posted by caber
If Demenezes had been a bomber and was holding a detonation device in his hand shooting him would have resulted in an explosion!.
quote:
Originally posted by caber
What is the point in a Jury trial if the obvious verdict is dissallowed. i would not be happy with that instruction if I was on the jury.
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
(despite not being aware of ALL the facts).
Surely the whole point in both this case and the one of the squaddie is if the police want to stop you and ask you questions
YOU LET THEM
If the squaddie had said "of course officer, you are arresting the wrong person but here are my wrists for your hand-cuffs please don't do
them too tight"
that wouldn't have happened.
Depending on who you believe, John CdeM stood up (fearing that it was re his over-stayed visa) resulting in the police holding him down an capping
him. IF this was the case he should have taken a chill pill. If it really is that he did nothing and was executed that that's ridiculous.
However I can't help but feel he should have followed the Chris Rock advice:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=SwfTustpG8g
Quality
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
(despite not being aware of ALL the facts).
a fair amount of fact has been reported in the papers.
But, if it does require full facts to form a verdict, then surely the jury, who have heard ALL the facts, should be allowed a free hand to decide a verdict?
Crikey... me and Mr H agreeing (sort of) on something - whatever next!?
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
Crikey... me and Mr H agreeing (sort of) on something - whatever next!?
lol
quote:
Originally posted by mr henderson
Not really, they have to decide on a verdict that falls within the law. That's why the coroner (in this case a distinguished judge) directs them
John
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
Crikey... me and Mr H agreeing (sort of) on something - whatever next!?
maybe you'll be right next time!
quote:
By the judge
But in narrowing down the choice of verdict, he added: "All interested persons agree that a verdict of unlawful killing could only be left to you if you could be sure that a specific officer had committed a very serious crime - murder or manslaughter."
quote:
From wikipedia
In English law unlawful killing is a verdict that can be returned by an inquest in England and Wales. The verdict means that a death was caused by another person, without lawful excuse and in breach of the criminal law, in other words homicide. This includes murder, manslaughter, infanticide and causing death by dangerous driving. It is important that the inquest does not name any individual person as responsible.[1] A verdict of unlawful killing generally leads to a Police investigation, with the aim of gathering sufficient evidence to identify, charge and prosecute the culprit(s).
The appropriate standard of proof is that the unlawful killing must be beyond reasonable doubt. If this standard is not met, a verdict of accidental death or death by misadventure should be considered on the balance of probabilities.[1]
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
quote:
Originally posted by mr henderson
Not really, they have to decide on a verdict that falls within the law. That's why the coroner (in this case a distinguished judge) directs them
John
Do you mean in general, or are you implying that an unlawful killing verdict would be unlawful itself in this instance?
) then it's that the whole thing was a tragic accident. Bit of overlapping post stuff there.
Anyway, I read that wikipedia article earlier, and my interpretation of it was that there was no way the case in question could be considered unlawful
killing.
It would also seem to me that friendly fire incidents could not be called unlawful killing either, but I do know that many coroners are actual doctors
(real doctors ie medical) rather than lawyers, and as there is nothing much likely to come of it maybe they let those verdicts stand
John
id agree a tragic accident but im not impressed with the competence of the command/control on the day. I can accept the radios not working, though
surely someone would've seen that coming? My main problem is firstly the failure to identify him promptly (or indeed at all), and the
communications errors that lead to the armed officers at the scene thinking he had been positively ID'd as a terrorist.
I think about JCM often because like me he was just a tradesman heading out to earn a living, and i dont like the idea that police can F%%% up that
badly and make out its just bad luck. I'll repeat, its a F*** UP of the highest order.
But bad luck is exactly what it is. None of the people involved knew him, wanted him dead, planned to kill him, were going to benefit in any way from
his death as the person that he was in reality.
They all knew him as a terrorist who was on his way to kill as many people as he could. That knowledge was wrong, it was a mistake, it was maybe
sloppy and clumsy, but never-the-less that was the knowledge that they were operating on. To try to consider any of them culpable would just be crazy.
Incompetent, maybe, but not culpable.
What the noisy police haters want is for the people involved to be considered criminals. Now they may, or may not, be very stupid, but criminals they
are not.
John
Succinctly put!
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
The TV and press reported that one officer repeatedly punched the guy while others 'restrained' him. That's absolutely not what I saw!
There were 3 officers - one had successfully placed his right arm behind his back. Another was struggling to get the left arm behind his back because he was resisting. The third officer then punched the guy several times on the tricep / bicep area to weaken the muscle. The guy was then restrained and handcuffed.
Absolutely text-book stuff and AS PER TRAINING!
I, for one, am quite prepared for me and my family to run the very real personal risk of being caught in a terrorist strike in this great country of
ours so as not to have to put the authorities in an uncomfortable decision making position whereby they might very occasionally make tragic
mistakes.
Not.
Damm good job these guys were not on duty last week when the arrested that tory MP under the anti-terrorism legislation. I bet he was glad he
wasn't wearing a brown face and a puffa jacket!
As for JCdM, he was not positively identified one way or the other and if the cops really thought he was a bomber why let him get down the
underground. The surveillance went wrong and the senior officer made a late snap decision to kill him. Not sure where the accident bit comes in and
unlucky seems a bit of an understatment. As in 'Hello Mrs M, your son has been unlucky and we have shot him to death. It was an accident.'
quote:
Originally posted by richard thomas
...run the very real personal risk of being caught in a terrorist strike in this great country of ours
quote:
Originally posted by MikeRJ
So you are saying police officers are actually trained to deliberately and repeatedly scrape someone's face along tarmac? Which text book is that written in?
What I still don't get (from both the UK news and from watching all those American cop shows) is why the police shoot AND KILL so many people at
all.
Surely the majority of cases would be dealt with much better with several shots to the legs, arms, shoulder etc. ( they're called marksmen
aren't they? )
That way, the bad guys would have something to think about too.
quote:
Originally posted by Dusty
Not sure where the accident bit comes in and unlucky seems a bit of an understatment. As in 'Hello Mrs M, your son has been unlucky and we have shot him to death. It was an accident.'
very interesting reading, quite funny how the people who would swap a police service that cant kill people for the small chance of a terrorist
incident dont live anywhere near london! and i bet they dont have any friends or family who were injured during 7 - 7.
Both myself and my wife work in london and the fear is very real.
As for Paedophile's in every play ground, no not eveyone but the London Borough of Newham has more registered sex offenders living on the
borough than the rest of London put together.
When i saw the clip of the squaddy, there is nothing wrong with punching the arms but the scrapping of the face didnt look good.
Too many opinions on this thread which are based on incorrect information, mainly from the press, that i wont respond but we are far from becoming a
Police State, most coppers are too poo scared to fart, let alone kill people willy nilly. Times have changed!!!
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
quote:
Originally posted by richard thomas
...run the very real personal risk of being caught in a terrorist strike in this great country of ours
Do you know that worrying about terrorism is more likely to kill you (though stress and the increased risk of heart attacks etc) than terrorism itself? FACT. In the US, road accidents kill as many as 911 every 26 days.
What im saying, is that you cant believe what you read in papers. Terrorism is a minor risk. Just like there arent really paedos in every playground.
Now my little rant there doesnt really relate to the JCM case, i just thought id throw it in because you said 'very real risk' when there frankly isnt one. If you want something to worry about, id suggest that the greatest risk to loved ones at the moment might be as simple as them crashing in the snow.
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Fandango
What I still don't get (from both the UK news and from watching all those American cop shows) is why the police shoot AND KILL so many people at all.
Surely the majority of cases would be dealt with much better with several shots to the legs, arms, shoulder etc. ( they're called marksmen aren't they? )
That way, the bad guys would have something to think about too.
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Fandango
What I still don't get (from both the UK news and from watching all those American cop shows) is why the police shoot AND KILL so many people at all.
Surely the majority of cases would be dealt with much better with several shots to the legs, arms, shoulder etc. ( they're called marksmen aren't they? )
That way, the bad guys would have something to think about too.
Nope - they were NOT marksmen... that's just a popular media title. They are AFO's... authorised firearms officers. The guys on the ground normally have to rely on their Glock pistols in quick moving situations and it's not like in the films. Shooting something with a pistol (particularly if its moving) is VERY difficult. That's why all UK AFO's are trained to shoot at the torso... it's the biggest area of the body. AFO's are not trained to shoot at limbs because they would miss most of the time!
The nearest thing to Marksmen (as the media call them all), are the Riflemen. These guys can hit a 2p coin from 500 yards, but unfortunately, they only come out for pre-planned operations and are pretty much never at the scene of fast moving reactive operations. Why? Because their vantage points are carefully considered and it takes a bit of time to set up a rifle!
Yeeeeees, but they thought they were dealing with someone who was about to explode a bomb... why shoot him in the leg... how was that going to stop
him? It wouldn't!
If's, but's and maybe's... great tools when you have the benefit of hindsight!
Yes, indeed, hindsight, that marvellous thing that allows people who are put in awful situations to be judged by others later.
I was having a read of the IPCC statement about the Harry Stanley case referred to earlier, and felt it worth quoting from the conclusion
"We must also be clear that none of these recommendations will prevent fatal
mistakes happening in future. Developments in training, policy and less lethal options should lessen the risk but will not eliminate it. The risk of
mistake will be present as long as society expects police officers to carry guns to protect it from armed threats."
John
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
Sorry Woodster, but I didn't realise it said in the Terrorists Handbook that explosive devices MUST be carried in rucksacks, or worn under heavy jackets!
Nope - he didn't have one!
seven times... seven times!!1111oneoneone
I bet the cops rue the decision to kill rather than attempt to move people away from him. If they had seen his hands it would be apparent that a
detonation couldnt occur instantly unless he had a timer set, hence they might've had a second or two to delay the desicion, which would've
been enough to save him i suspect.
If he stood up with his hands in his pockets, then he sort of sealed his own fate.