de Menezes killing: open verdict

[pdxm]

The coroner tries to clarify it later and that's where the steps issue comes up.

 

[belboid]

a few and 'one or two' are different, and significantly so, especially within the context of an inquest into someone being shot seven times in the head at point blank range.

try it at home and see, it becomes quite clear what the difference is.

While we're on it, it's interesting that not long back a coroner could find the US army guilty of unlawful killing when they bombed some brit soldiers in Iraq (despite the pilots undoubtedly having an 'honest belief' they were enemy), but that this jury wasn't allowed to consider that. Also interesting that the coroner explicitly said lawful killing would be if it was probable (and only probable, not beyond shadow of a doubt) the police acted with an 'honest belief' that Menezes was about to blow himself up, and the jury explicitly rejected that.

And also interesting that the families solicitors were not present from eight days ago, due to the coroners bias, but the jury weren't allowed to know why! That almost caused a riot in the hearing, and the court officials almost having to attack the public!

 

[pdxm]

a few and 'one or two' are different, and significantly so, especially within the context of an inquest into someone being shot seven times in the head at point blank range.

try it at home and see, it becomes quite clear what the difference is.

While we're on it, it's interesting that not long back a coroner could find the US army guilty of unlawful killing when they bombed some brit soldiers in Iraq (despite the pilots undoubtedly having an 'honest belief' they were enemy), but that this jury wasn't allowed to consider that. Also interesting that the coroner explicitly said lawful killing would be if it was probable (and only probable, not beyond shadow of a doubt) the police acted with an 'honest belief' that Menezes was about to blow himself up, and the jury explicitly rejected that.

And also interesting that the families solicitors were not present from eight days ago, due to the coroners bias, but the jury weren't allowed to know why! That almost caused a riot in the hearing, and the court officials almost having to attack the public!

The issue of "enemy" and "self-defence" are entirely different. The two inquests were entirely different so the two legal approachs would have been entirely different. As for your few verus "one or two" blah.....

 

[belboid]

as to it, what? All you've done is give vague pseudo-legalistic bullshit as to why you think the jury, and all the witnesses, and everyone apart from the lying coppers, were wrong. Lousy excuses for some trigger happy twats.

Anything seriously factual? Naah. Of course not. Because you have nothing to go on.

 

[pdxm]

as to it, what? All you've done is give vague pseudo-legalistic bullshit as to why you think the jury, and all the witnesses, and everyone apart from the lying coppers, were wrong. Lousy excuses for some trigger happy twats.

Anything seriously factual? Naah. Of course not. Because you have nothing to go on.

Your point about the unlawful killing verdict in the other trail was pointless and demonstartes your complete ignorance about the law and the legal system. The coroner, a highly trained legal expert agrees with me that on the basis of all the evidence disputed or otherwise the jury could not have found that the officers did not have an honestly held belief that he was a suicide bomber, hence a verdict of unlawful killing could not be justified. I have pointed out that

1) The evidence of the civilian witnesses is less than consistent
2) Not all the jury were of the same opinion
3) The officers accounts could have been mistaken in some details for all the well documented reasons I have cited and whcih several journos are now commenting on, it does not follow that they lied
4) For exactly the same reasons as 3 the civilian witnesses could have been mistaken about small details such as two words spoken or a person moving a small distance
5)They would have gained no legal advantage from lying about the warning or the fact that he moved (however little) towards them. So why do it.


MORE THAN ENOUGH FOR STARTERS

 

[belboid]

fuck! you were the coroner weren't you? that's the only reason you could come out with such bullshit.

Your point about the other 'trail' is unjustified and unargued, and wrong.

The families solicitor, a highly trained legal expert, agrees with me that on the basis of all evidence disputed or otherwise, there was a perfectly good case to be made for unlawful killing. The fact that the coroner is a highly trained blah blah is also irrelevant, except as a pathetic 'ooh, look they're really clever we better bow down before them' nonsense. I bet you think it would be an appalling vista if we didn't believe in the decisions of such a highly trained person.

1 - it is overwhelmingly consistent, more than enough to convince a jury. Unlike tjhe police, they did not get the chance to collude and agree their evidence, yet it was, to repeat, overwhelmingly consistent

2 - entirely irrelevant. Unless you wish to dismiss the basis of the legal system.

3 - nonsense. There were far too many discrepancies. Not just from the two direct killers, but from almost everyone in the bloody force. Lok back through the thread, there is lie after lie.

4 - funny that all three were all wrong in exactly the opposite way to the 2 cops. On a balance of probabilities, it is clear which is the more likely. Even if it were 50/50 in each case, all of them answering the way they did would have a chance of 1/32. Almost beyond any reasonable doubt. And I wouldn't put the initial; odds at 50/50/

5 - yes they did. And even if they didn't, the wider advantages gained, as mentioned before - but ignored by you - would be more than enough reason to do so.

ALL IN ALL (actually, there's really no reason to shout) you have not one single fact, just spurious psychology and justifications. All you have amounts to no more than 'I believe the cops, and not the witnesses. And I always will.'

 

[pdxm]

fuck! you were the coroner weren't you? that's the only reason you could come out with such bullshit.

Your point about the other 'trail' is unjustified and unargued, and wrong.

The families solicitor, a highly trained legal expert, agrees with me that on the basis of all evidence disputed or otherwise, there was a perfectly good case to be made for unlawful killing. The fact that the coroner is a highly trained blah blah is also irrelevant, except as a pathetic 'ooh, look they're really clever we better bow down before them' nonsense. I bet you think it would be an appalling vista if we didn't believe in the decisions of such a highly trained person.

1 - it is overwhelmingly consistent, more than enough to convince a jury. Unlike tjhe police, they did not get the chance to collude and agree their evidence, yet it was, to repeat, overwhelmingly consistent

2 - entirely irrelevant. Unless you wish to dismiss the basis of the legal system.

3 - nonsense. There were far too many discrepancies. Not just from the two direct killers, but from almost everyone in the bloody force. Lok back through the thread, there is lie after lie.

4 - funny that all three were all wrong in exactly the opposite way to the 2 cops. On a balance of probabilities, it is clear which is the more likely. Even if it were 50/50 in each case, all of them answering the way they did would have a chance of 1/32. Almost beyond any reasonable doubt. And I wouldn't put the initial; odds at 50/50/

5 - yes they did. And even if they didn't, the wider advantages gained, as mentioned before - but ignored by you - would be more than enough reason to do so.

ALL IN ALL (actually, there's really no reason to shout) you have not one single fact, just spurious psychology and justifications. All you have amounts to no more than 'I believe the cops, and not the witnesses. And I always will.'

In order

Point about the other trial was irrelevant because the other trial dealt with totally different legal issues. If you can't see that then there is little hope of having a rational debate with you

1. The evidence of the other witnesses was not overwhelmingly consistent. That is a simple matter of documentary fact. You can read it for yourself. The jury may have given it more weight but that does not mean it was consistent.

2. Majority verdicts are always less satisfying than unnamimous ones. That's why the coroner gave them a week and they still couldn't do it

3. Lying and being mistaken are two different things

4. This is just total crap

5. no they didn't. In fact if they'd said they didn't shout armed police they'd be in a better position now.

 

[belboid]

Well, we've already established you are not interested in debate, merely in regurgitating the police line. So weak are your 'arguments' that all you can say as to why unlawful killing was ruled out is that the coroner said so, and he's 'highly trained'! Woo hoo!

If you believe they dealt with 'totally different legal issues' it is up to you to show it, not simply assert it. You are aware of the difference aren't you?

As to the rest

1 - I disagree

2 - irrelevant

3 - True, but given the massive numbers of 'mistakes' in the polices accounts (and the fact that they all are mistaken in ways beneficial to them!), then to call them 'lies' is entirely reasonable.

4 - no, it isnt. I'll add basic maths to the things you dont understand

5 - Wrong. Again.

Anyway, unless you actually come up with something resembling a fact I shall bid you goodnight as all you are doing is repeating over and over 'coppers good, public bad' in a variety of different, daft, ways.

 

[pdxm]

If the case you are refering to in that of L/cpl Hull, I think you'll find that no witnesses appeared stating that they had an hoenstly held but mistaken belief. Likewise I don't think the issue of self-defence or defence of others was raised. Hence the verdict came about under different legal circumstances.

As for point three above. The massive number of inconsistencies in the accounts of the two critical offiicers to the recollection appear to amount to two words and a few steps. Not entirely a massive conspiracy

 

[belboid]

No American witnesses gave evidence at all in Hull's case. So no they didn't explicitly state they held an honest belief. But that was still what had to be considered, whether they might have done so, and it was rejected as unreasonable. Which makes the two pretty similar. Unless you believe that just cos a cop says (automaton like) 'I had a genuinely held belief that he was about to blow himself up' then that MUST be what he thought.

Whether it should or would have been in this case might well be debatable, but that is no reason, legal or otherwise, for not even giving the jury the option. Nor was there any good legal reason for not allowing the jury to deliver a narrative verdict, nor to deny them the right to know why the families solicitor would not appear at the end of the hearing.

Re the police discrepancies, I am talking about the whole police case, not just the words of those two.

 

[pdxm]

No American witnesses gave evidence at all in Hull's case. So no they didn't explicitly state they held an honest belief. But that was still what had to be considered, whether they might have done so, and it was rejected as unreasonable. Which makes the two pretty similar. Unless you believe that just cos a cop says (automaton like) 'I had a genuinely held belief that he was about to blow himself up' then that MUST be what he thought.

Whether it should or would have been in this case might well be debatable, but that is no reason, legal or otherwise, for not even giving the jury the option. Nor was there any good legal reason for not allowing the jury to deliver a narrative verdict, nor to deny them the right to know why the families solicitor would not appear at the end of the hearing.

Re the police discrepancies, I am talking about the whole police case, not just the words of those two.

I have been talking about those two all along

 

[belboid]

well then you are deliberately and wrongly narrowing down the evidence. A verdict of unlawful killing would not have applied solely to those two, it could have been applied to anyone in the operation (eg if someone had told them that thy had definitely seen Menezes carrying a bomb, the two would have had an honest belief, but the person passing the information on would have been culpable)

 

[pdxm]

well then you are deliberately and wrongly narrowing down the evidence. A verdict of unlawful killing would not have applied solely to those two, it could have been applied to anyone in the operation (eg if someone had told them that thy had definitely seen Menezes carrying a bomb, the two would have had an honest belief, but the person passing the information on would have been culpable)

So you accept that the two critical officers could in fact have been telling the truth as they believed it?

 

[Jazzz]

hurrah for the jury.

 

[soulman]

In a nutshell, all pdxm's comments can be summed up as 'police - good. public - stupid.'

Yep that's his 4 word mantra.

 

[dessiato]

pdxm, is this another name for detective boy? The mantra and styles seem the same.

Reading the thread, I can only assume that there is a large element of 'the police are right/the police are wrong' thinking.

The bottom line is that the police killed an innocent man, and they will not need to answer for this in a court of law. If they are so convinced that they did the right thing, let them come into open court and let a jury decide whether or not they are guilty of murder. It would be interesting to see, although I cannot see it happening.

 

[pdxm]

pdxm, is this another name for detective boy? The mantra and styles seem the same.

Reading the thread, I can only assume that there is a large element of 'the police are right/the police are wrong' thinking.

The bottom line is that the police killed an innocent man, and they will not need to answer for this in a court of law. If they are so convinced that they did the right thing, let them come into open court and let a jury decide whether or not they are guilty of murder. It would be interesting to see, although I cannot see it happening.

I have said that there were parts of the police operation which were very bad. What I have been arguing is a legal point of if the critical officers concerned can be said to be legally guilty of murder and/or if it is demonstratively true that they knowingly lied to the inquest. These are important questions. Unless you want eveytime the police make a mistake for the legal view to be completely overlooked and the situation to be turned over the kangeroo court of the mob.

 

[Barking_Mad]

 

[oake]

From the earlier hearing:

A detective leading a covert police operation following Jean Charles de Menezes asked control room bosses at least three times if he should detain him before he entered Stockwell Tube station, the Old Bailey heard today.

The officer, known as "James", said he became "tetchy" after controllers told him to wait even though the 27-year-old Brazilian electrician - who police believed was 21/7 bomber Hussain Osman - was seconds from the radio dead zone of the Underground.

James, who contacted the control room while Mr de Menezes was still on a bus from Brixton to Stockwell, said: "I came on the radio and asked them a question: 'Do you want me to detain the subject before he goes down to the Tube?' My instructions were to wait. I told them we had got to make a decision and we have probably about 20 seconds. I said again: 'Do you want this man detained?'

"I said 'If you don't give me any answer he is going to be down in the Tube and we will lose radio contact.' I don't know how many times I asked that question, it was at least three times.

"I just got, wait, wait, wait. I started to get tetchy and put down the telephone."

James told the court how he had ordered his team to follow the Brazilian into the station but was alarmed to hear a firearms unit had also arrived.

The unit had not been at an earlier briefing and did not know the identities of the covert officers, jurors heard.

James said: "My concerns was that officer 'Ivor' was dressed identically to Mr de Menezes. He had a denim jeans and a denim jacket and someone coming onto the plot might be confused." He was worried a police officer might accidentally shoot a colleague: "I have got five surveillance officers down there who are all armed. They are in control of the subject and if the subject does something they can deal with it.

"If you have a firearms team running into that, that is going to compromise the surveillance and the sight of armed police running towards a subject is going to cause an issue... If you have got officers waving guns at each other, then clearly it's not a very good place to be."

The detective said he had become "frustrated" earlier in the day when, during a briefing in the control room, Detective Inspector Andrew Whiddett ordered his surveillance team to "contain" suspects.

When officer '"Harry" asked Mr Whiddett to explain "contain", the officer allegedly shrugged his shoulders and refused to elaborate.

Link

 

[dessiato]

I have said that there were parts of the police operation which were very bad. What I have been arguing is a legal point of if the critical officers concerned can be said to be legally guilty of murder and/or if it is demonstratively true that they knowingly lied to the inquest. These are important questions. Unless you want eveytime the police make a mistake for the legal view to be completely overlooked and the situation to be turned over the kangeroo court of the mob.

We cannot decide if they are legally guilty of murder unless they are tried in an open court for a jury to make that decision.

I certainly don't expect that every time a police officer makes a mistake that he should not be subject to the same law as the rest of us.

The law should apply equally to anyone in any circumstance. A police officer making a mistake, must, and should, have to account for his actions. As, I would expect anyone else to. I would apply this equally to possible perjury, as well as possible murder/manslaughter cases.

From the information that I have seen here in Portugal there are some serious questions about the honesty of all the officers involved in this case.

 

[ymu]

I have said that there were parts of the police operation which were very bad. What I have been arguing is a legal point of if the critical officers concerned can be said to be legally guilty of murder and/or if it is demonstratively true that they knowingly lied to the inquest. These are important questions. Unless you want eveytime the police make a mistake for the legal view to be completely overlooked and the situation to be turned over the kangeroo court of the mob.

Seems you've not exactly been truthful about the need to shout a warning pdxm.

Mr Paddick, who quit the Met last year, said that under the secret rules for dealing with a suicide bomber, drawn up with the help of Israeli experts, firearms officers at the scene were given discretion to shoot to kill.

"The policy says that if the firearms officers have any doubt that the suspect is a suicide bomber, they should shout a warning and react to how the suspect responds," he said. "But if there is no doubt, then you can fire a critical shot without warning. The evidence is that they didn't shout a warning. Yet we have a surveillance officer saying he didn't get a proper look at Jean Charles when he left the flat and surveillance officers with varying degrees of certainty as to whether it was [terror suspect] Hussain Osman or not. There was ambiguity and no code word."

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...wants-commanding-officer-sacked-14107904.html

Coppers, eh? Lying little scumbags.

 

[TAE]

You see this is where it gets murky for me. Were the officers told that this person was a suicide bomber who was about to detonate his bomb? Were they merely told that this person is believed to be the suspect? What were they told exactly?

pdxm, or anyone else, I'd really like an answer this.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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.

Odd how the British army managed to encounter similar and worse situations in the six counties and yet rarely reacted with the sheer fuckwitted ferocity that your fellow officer did, and yet we are the ones who are trained to kill from the moment we sign up, and you're not.
And the halfwits who did this are your elite.
G-d help us all if those shit-dribbles are the best our crime-fighters can come up with.

 

[belboid]

interesting that pdxm started by attacking the unlawful killing verdict, and only when he was shown to be talking utter shite did he start pretending he was only talking about a possible murder charge.

the bit vp just quoted is also wholly laughable - if supposedly highly trained and skilled people only have to react in the same was as any untrained bod off the street, then what was the point in all that training?

 

[ViolentPanda]

interesting that pdxm started by attacking the unlawful killing verdict, and only when he was shown to be talking utter shite did he start pretending he was only talking about a possible murder charge.

the bit vp just quoted is also wholly laughable - if supposedly highly trained and skilled people only have to react in the same was as any untrained bod off the street, then what was the point in all that training?

Precisely.
As I'm sure Sas will confirm, in NI you had highly-trained soldiers successfully suppressing their training well enough that we only had occasional clusterfucks (mostly caused by members of the Parachute regt, unsurprisingly) over the course of 30+ years.
What I suspect is that the "elite" Met officers in question were "highly trained", but in weapons use and unit tactics, rather than in using their reasoning skills. "All brawn, no brain", in other words.

 

[pdxm]

Odd how the British army managed to encounter similar and worse situations in the six counties and yet rarely reacted with the sheer fuckwitted ferocity that your fellow officer did, and yet we are the ones who are trained to kill from the moment we sign up, and you're not.
And the halfwits who did this are your elite.
G-d help us all if those shit-dribbles are the best our crime-fighters can come up with.

Hah, hah, f'ing hah. As someone who was born in the six counties and lived there for 23 of my 34 years you have no idea of how far wrong you are.

 

[snadge]

Hah, hah, f'ing hah. As someone who was born in the six counties and lived there for 23 of my 34 years you have no idea of how far wrong you are.

So now you are saying that the police force are more suitable for terrorist situations than the army.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Hah, hah, f'ing hah. As someone who was born in the six counties and lived there for 23 of my 34 years you have no idea of how far wrong you are.

As someone who served there, I have plenty of idea of how wrong I'm not, soapy.

 

[ViolentPanda]

So now you are saying that the police force are more suitable for terrorist situations than the army.

He's actually probably saying that the British army acted far worse than the Met ever has.
Thing is, even at shit-houses like Castlereagh, where the slimies and the boys from 5 and SB tortured folk, they didn't have a "deaths in custody" record to match the Met.
The reason why? Our discipline was harsher. You fuck up and you get court-martialled. What do coppers have to fear? They're never called to pay for fatalities, so what's the incentive for them to tighten up, have half a fucking clue as to what they're doing? No incentive at all.

 

[snadge]

What do coppers have to fear? They're never called to pay for fatalities, so what's the incentive for them to tighten up, have half a fucking clue as to what they're doing? No incentive at all.

No, they just hold the government to ransom.

and innocents will suffer, I'm frightened of the police now imposing on my life, I enjoy a smoke, as do a lot of my friends, we don't go out now as the pubs seem to be a financial windfall to the coppers, they just pick anyone up now for any reason, search their homes and fine them.

No thanks.