de Menezes killing: open verdict
- Thread starter dessiato
- Start date
teqniq
DisMembered
Can I subsitute ridiculous for corrupt?
Everyone except the coroner who is trained to understand the law. But hey what's that in the face of the mob?
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Look at it this way Mr Policeman. Your average citizen is uncomfortable with the idea that some over-excited cops can shoot him repeatedly in the face by mistake and get away with it.
teqniq
DisMembered
Actually I'm interested in Laptop's comment on the other thread :-
If that is the case, why wern't they told? Nevermind I can guess.
If that is the case, why wern't they told? Nevermind I can guess.
Well give me your average citizen and put him/her in the same situation as the armed officers and we will see what he/she would do.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
So, next time a terrorist incident occurs, the average citizen is supposed to be relaxed about the idea of being mistakenly shot repeatedly in the face by adrenaline-crazed police?
It's not like they have any kind of assurances that it won't happen again is it?
It's not like they have any kind of assurances that it won't happen again is it?
I see. So in your "expert" legal opinion the concept of a "premediated strike" has no value in law or is of no bearing when considering the legal defence of "self-defence"? Wondered how long it would take for the personal insults to come out. Usually right at the point were you start to lose the polite debate
No they won't get any assurances because we don't live in such a world. We live in a world where nasty unfortuante things happen, such as people blowing themselves up on the tube.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Well, quite. So the point of this travesty of justice was to preserve the right of the police to shoot anyone they feel the need to shoot repeatedly in the face?
Assuming they're a suspected terrorist of course, under the provisions of the lovely terrorism act, but these days that applies to any member of Greenpeace right?
Erm, no.
1) He wasn't killed under the terrorism act. There is no such provision€
2) The proportionate use of any force doesn't seem to have been discussed much at the inquest. Largely because it made very little difference to the outcome.
3) Read Section 3 of the criminal law act 1967 if you want an explanation of the right to use force
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
So under section 3 of the 1967 act it would have been legitimate for some of the other passengers to use lethal force to prevent the police from shooting the unfortunate Brazilian gentleman repeatedly in the face?
I'm trying to explain to you what a Jury found to be the truth for now. I'm hoping, despite your problem with people and Juries, that you won't be suggesting that it's okay for the police to shoot dead someone just because they have guns and they can.
It would have depended on their honestly held belief at the time.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
As far as I can make out most of them thought they were witnessing a brutal gangland murder, so it would be reasonable for them to prevent it would it not?
I know what the jury found, but it has nothing to do with the charge or notional charge of murder on behalf of the person that fired the shots. An inquest is NOT a criminal trail. Even if the findings of the jury are accepted they would not make out a charge of murder.
If that is what they genuinely believed then in law they would have been entitled, yes
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Legal niceties apart, would you accept that it was morally wrong for the officers concerned to shoot an innocent man repeatedly in the face PDXM?
Everyone knows it was murder now. The Jury, despite the shite from the Judge, has made that clear. There's a legal argument to be had but that's got nothing to do with me.
No I wouldn't useless they honestly believed he was innocent at the time, which in this case no-one has made a case for.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
So basically you think it was OK for them to do that to him?
Ah, the old "everyone knows" bollocks.
Was it ok for them to shoot a person they genuinely believed to be a suicide bomber, yes. Unless of course you think they thought:-
"He ain't a suicide bomber but fuck it, it'll be fun to shoot him anyway. Let's fuck up our lives and have a laugh"
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
You're avoiding the point. To most people who aren't in the police, this was a tragic mistake that got an innocent man killed brutally.
You seem to be sticking to a view that says that it was just fine to do this. Perfectly reasonable under the circumstances.
You seem to be sticking to a view that says that it was just fine to do this. Perfectly reasonable under the circumstances.
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
Was it OK for them to lie to the court about what happened? Why did they feel the need to do that?
I'm not avoiding the point. I'm addressing it full on, in all its ugliness. Some people seem to casually forget that this took place a few days after the worst terrorist attack ever seen in London. Some peole seem to labour under the impression that it was all some made up threat. Well I can assure you that the officers who went down the tunnels, or responded to Tavistock Square, or guarded the bodies of the vicitms at the morgue think differently.
Well yes they do. You seem to have problems with a Jury. Would you rather people you don't care for were gunned down without any recourse?
Similar threads
