de Menezes killing: open verdict
- Thread starter dessiato
- Start date
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
I quite understand that they were hyped up. That's part of my concern PDXM.
You may recall becoming quite abusive when I expressed concern at the behaviour and presumed mental state of some of the officers in Lime Street station around that time, perhaps a day or two before this incident.
You may recall becoming quite abusive when I expressed concern at the behaviour and presumed mental state of some of the officers in Lime Street station around that time, perhaps a day or two before this incident.
They didn't. You seem to forget that in writing their accounts of what happened they would have been given after very detailed legal advice. It would have advanced their legal position not one iota by telling lies. Now there will are conflicts in what they say happened and what other witnesses to a very shocking and tragic incident say happened. I would be amazed if there weren't. Why? Well if you're interested google "perceptual distortion and firearms" and find out why.
Erm, no they don't. Not even "everyone" on the jury was in agreement.
Are you arguing for ROBOCOPS? Look, the police officer is a human being, just like everyone else. Yes they recieve training (too little in my opnion) but they react to adrenaline, perceptual distortion, fatigue etc like everyone else. Even given all the training in the world you can't fully train for the actual scenario that took place. There are no simulators where you actually put your gun to the head of a live person and kill them so you can train for how you will feel, for example.
And still the message has been broadcast far and wide. They deliberately planned and killed an innocent young man on his way to work.
Maybe they should be saying sorry...
The acting commissioner did and if you take the time to read the testimony of the officers involved in the inquest I think you'll find they did as well. You can find it here
www.stockwellinquest.org.uk/
Just as well there were more rational people than you on the jury
I'd trust a Jury of my peers long before I'd trust some lying fucking filth.
I reckon most people feel the same, but hey, I don't know for sure
you know lots then
I know how to reduce you to 4 words...
I tend to use few words when talking with the ignorant.
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
personally it matters little what the officers beleived when shooting him. bare facts are that they shot someone who was entirely innocent. As this was the resultant action regardless of intent they should face individual prosicution.
Just doing my job isn't an accepted excuse, ever.
nor is Ignorance of the law.
If JCdM had been killed by a piece of falling scaffold outside brixton tube then there would be legal consiquences for all those involved and likely as not there would end up with some one going to prision for his death.
It seems ridicluious to the majority of people that a simple accidental oversigth in the majority of cases where accidental death is caused result in sever consiquences for those involved and yet when a death is caused by armed police given the licence to shoot to kill based on flimsey and poorly corrobortated evidence would not face equal scruntany.
Just doing my job isn't an accepted excuse, ever.
nor is Ignorance of the law.
If JCdM had been killed by a piece of falling scaffold outside brixton tube then there would be legal consiquences for all those involved and likely as not there would end up with some one going to prision for his death.
It seems ridicluious to the majority of people that a simple accidental oversigth in the majority of cases where accidental death is caused result in sever consiquences for those involved and yet when a death is caused by armed police given the licence to shoot to kill based on flimsey and poorly corrobortated evidence would not face equal scruntany.
Erm, the jury gave the 'worst' verdict on the police that was available to them, choosing to effectively call the police liars. If if hadn't been for the coroner's guidance, some which seems to be of debatable legality, there seems to have been a decent chance that the jury would have found 'unlawful killing' the right choice. It was hardly a ringing endorsement for the police, more a get out and whitewash aided by the coroner.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
if you honestly believe that the only thing that matters is the killers' 'honestly held belief' then you know a lot less bout the law than you are pretending to here.
Whether or not they took reasonable steps to establish CdM's guilt (which is what you have to do in law, not establish innocence as you seem to suggest) is also rather important. The jury clearly found that they took no such steps. Far from it.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
2 million quid spent on investigating Sheridan for perjury. Months of investigation. Why not these police who the inquest jury decided lied to them?
That has nothing to do with the criminal charge of murder. The civil and criminal standards are different. One of the best discussions of it can be found here:-
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/columnists/gary_slapper/article3842499.ece
Well some of the posters aren't. Some such as Garfield appear to want individual proescutions. Others use the term murder. Others seem to think they know the coroners rules better than the coroner.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
well, as i read the coroners decision to rule out unlawful killing might well be under investigation, it seems an awful lot of people think either that they know the rules better than the coroner, or that the coroner refused to implement them appropriately. only a fool would rule such a possibility out. it would hardly be the first time such a thing happened.
as to individual prosecutions, they could and should still happen. no, the two lying cunts who put half a dozen bullets directly into CdM's head can't, realistically, be trued for murder, but that is very far from saying there should be no individual prosecutions. At the very least, those two should be immediately arrested and tried with perjury. Not to mention the other liars right the way up the chain of police.
as to individual prosecutions, they could and should still happen. no, the two lying cunts who put half a dozen bullets directly into CdM's head can't, realistically, be trued for murder, but that is very far from saying there should be no individual prosecutions. At the very least, those two should be immediately arrested and tried with perjury. Not to mention the other liars right the way up the chain of police.
You started with some reasonable comments and then let yourself down! Ask yourself this. What legal advantage would they have gained by deliberately perjuring themselves? Answer, none whatsoever.
Are you claiming that they accidently perjured themselves, as in 'whoops jury, I seem to have told you a pack of lies to justify our incompetence and unprofessional panic.'
Why should these officers and Cressida Dick remain in the job with full pensions, when folks like Sixsmith were run out of their jobs pdxm? One rule for the police, one for the rest of the employed public?
Why should these officers and Cressida Dick remain in the job with full pensions, when folks like Sixsmith were run out of their jobs pdxm? One rule for the police, one for the rest of the employed public?
Are you claiming that they accidently perjured themselves, as in 'whoops jury, I seem to have told you a pack of lies to justify our incompetence and unprofessional panic.'
Why should these officers and Cressida Dick remain in the job with full pensions, when folks like Sixsmith were run out of their jobs pdxm? One rule for the police, one for the rest of the employed public?
Have you read the transcripts of their evidence?? If you haven't I suggest you do. Do you understand the law on perjury? If you don't I suggest you read about it before posting further
Are you claiming that they accidently perjured themselves, as in 'whoops jury, I seem to have told you a pack of lies to justify our incompetence and unprofessional panic.'
Why should these officers and Cressida Dick remain in the job with full pensions, when folks like Sixsmith were run out of their jobs pdxm? One rule for the police, one for the rest of the employed public?
I take it you mean Shoesmith?
snadge
metal alchemist
They lied,
About his actions,
About his Clothing,
About the wires trailing from him,
About his backpack
About his demure,
About their shouted warnings.
About his movements on the train.
have you read the transcripts???????
Have you read what the jury thought of the reliability and honesty of the police's statements then pdxm, or are you conveniently forgetting the black and white yes/no questions
For people experiencing in the idea of giving honest witness statements, the police really seem to have struggled. Funny that.
I repeat: why should these police officers remain in a job (even be promoted) when incompetency elsewhere would lead to more vigorous disciplinary sanctions?
For people experiencing in the idea of giving honest witness statements, the police really seem to have struggled. Funny that.
I repeat: why should these police officers remain in a job (even be promoted) when incompetency elsewhere would lead to more vigorous disciplinary sanctions?
Yes. And my good neighbour has been at the inquest as a journo.
Have you read the evidence? Have you actually done the hard work and maybe thought for yourself, or do you prefer just to be spoonfed?
Similar threads
