"No Blood" at Oswald shooting claims photographer

[detective-boy]

The exchanges with Jessiedog on previous threads, quoted above, sum up the situation as regards the responsibilities of those involved at different levels.

But some seem to still be under the impression that Cmdr Dick was said to have specifically ordered the person being followed to be shot. She did not. She could not in law. And, if she did, the armed officers would know enough about their own responsibility to know that they could not rely upon such an order as a defence - it wouldn't be a defence, it would be an unlawful order and they would know that.

They have satisfied the IPCC and the CPS that they had an honestly held belief that the man was about to detonate a device. I am not able to tell you what led to that belief because, strangely enough, they didn;t pop round and explain themselves to me once they'd finished with the IPCC.

But we know: (a) they were told the man had left an address linked with the previous days bombings; (b) they knew the suspects for those bombings were still at large and, on 22 July, it was still very much believed that the failed devices had been intended to replicate 7 July; (c) they knew the man fitted the description for the suspect; (d) they knew the surveillance team had had sufficient suspicions to call for back-up (I do not know whether or not they knew the specific things they had seen - I suspect not); (e) they knew that Cmdr Dick had seen fit to send them to intercept the suspect (the argument about the precise words used is pretty meaningless in this respect - the anticipated tactic would be a "hard stop", something done dozens of time daily without incident). I do not know what they then saw, or were told, as they entered the platform and carriage, but there has been a suggestion that as they entered the carriage, Jean Charles de Menezes began to stand up and a surveillance officer grabbed him. The precise nature of what they saw / heard in that last five seconds would be of the most central relevance to establishing their belief.

 

[detective-boy]

And there you have it, the "Medusa defence" in a nutshell......

"It was all a misunderstanding.".

And everybody gets out of jail, free.

That is one way of putting it. But the sequence of events means that no individual criminal offence was committed. The organisation is on trial for how it came to create such a misunderstanding. That is not a "corporate manslaughter" charge but that is only because the corporate manslaughter law in this country is so ineffective. It desperately needs revision and that has been acknowledged for some years. But it is an extremely difficult area to legislate upon.

If an organisation fucks up corporately then the individual employees actually doing / not doing the relevant act should NOT be scapegoated. If individuals are held to account personally - and that may be appropriate in some cases and not in others - then it should be those directing the organisation and / or the individual operation.

But we must always remember that it is simply impossible to eliminate mistakes altogether. Any criminal liability must be based on proof of particular negligence rather than simple position. And we must acknowledge (through the media) that, tragic though they are, mistakes will take place where actions have to be taken based on imperfect knowledge.

We simply do not have the luxury of being able to act only with the benefit of hindsight.

Unlike Jazzz.

 

[Jazzz]

But some seem to still be under the impression that Cmdr Dick was said to have specifically ordered the person being followed to be shot. She did not. She could not in law. And, if she did, the armed officers would know enough about their own responsibility to know that they could not rely upon such an order as a defence - it wouldn't be a defence, it would be an unlawful order and they would know that.

Are you having a laugh? You are arguing that they couldn't have committed a crime because... it would be illegal!

Good grief.

Following this brain-numbing piece of circular logic, you then you come out with such extraordinary hand-waving as this;

"(e) they knew that Cmdr Dick had seen fit to send them to intercept the suspect (the argument about the precise words used is pretty meaningless in this respect - the anticipated tactic would be a "hard stop", something done dozens of time daily without incident)."

The precise words are obviously so crucial to this case that, like the CCTV, Dick's recording equipment was 'malfunctioned' (if the earlier poster is correct).

 

[WouldBe]

the armed officers would know enough about their own responsibility

Exactly. Deliberately killing an unarmed civilian is illegal.

They have satisfied the IPCC and the CPS that they had an honestly held belief that the man was about to detonate a device.

What device?

The 7/7 bombers used rucksack bombs. JC de M wasn't wearing a rucksack.

What the fuck was he about to explode?

Are coppers allowed to shoot someone who points a finger at them? Just in case they have an invisible gun.

Shooting a suspect terrorist isn't the brightest thing to do either is it. Not all terrorists are suicide bombers. Look at the Madrid bombings set of by mobile phone. Once you've shot the suspect you can't get any information out of them.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Exactly. Deliberately killing an unarmed civilian is illegal.

Not always. Neither the real world, nor the law is that simple.

What device?

The 7/7 bombers used rucksack bombs. JC de M wasn't wearing a rucksack.

What the fuck was he about to explode?

Are coppers allowed to shoot someone who points a finger at them? Just in case they have an invisible gun.

Shooting a suspect terrorist isn't the brightest thing to do either is it. Not all terrorists are suicide bombers. Look at the Madrid bombings set of by mobile phone. Once you've shot the suspect you can't get any information out of them.

Your lack of imagination/thought on the topic does not mean that no possible methods can be achieved. Nor does your brief rehash of the "shoot or don't shoot" policy help much.

This has all been done a hundred times or more, why are we wasting time doing it again?

 

[WouldBe]

Your lack of imagination/thought on the topic does not mean that no possible methods can be achieved.

Quite right. Had he been a terrorist he may have been on his way to pick up a device left in a train station locker. After all it's possibly not a good idea to have an explosive device lying around your house where if it goes off accidentally would do little collateral damage body count wise.

Or perhaps he was on his way to meet with the rest of his cell.

I've yet to see an interogation method that gets information out of a dead suspect.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Quite right. Had he been a terrorist he may have been on his way to pick up a device left in a train station locker. After all it's possibly not a good idea to have an explosive device lying around your house where if it goes off accidentally would do little collateral damage body count wise.

Or perhaps he was on his way to meet with the rest of his cell.

I've yet to see an interogation method that gets information out of a dead suspect.

Or he might have been wearing a chest rig with explosives in and nails padded around it. Or a belt of similar design.

Again this has been done a hundred times before...

 

[WouldBe]

Or he might have been wearing a chest rig with explosives in and nails padded around it. Or a belt of similar design.

That couldn't possibly have been hidden under a denin jacket without bulges been obvious.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

That couldn't possibly have been hidden under a denin jacket without bulges been obvious.

Really? I'd say it would depend on the cut of the jacket.

 

[detective-boy]

Exactly. Deliberately killing an unarmed civilian is illegal.

No matter how many times you state this "fact" ... it will not become true.

 

[Yossarian]

Or he might have been wearing a chest rig with explosives in and nails padded around it. Or a belt of similar design.

Again this has been done a hundred times before...

Yeah, or he could actually have been a robot made entirely of plastic explosives – or a hologram…

The thing that most makes we want to puke about the whole shabby affair is that Cressida Dick’s actually been promoted since!

 

[detective-boy]

The thing that most makes we want to puke about the whole shabby affair is that Cressida Dick’s actually been promoted since!

I agree that that is wrong.

Whilst I think she was actually selected for promotion prior to the incident, she should not have been promoted whilst the Met continued to face a criminal prosecution for an incident which she played a central role in. It is fairly standard practice to defer the promotions of officers of junior rank if they have any outstanding complaints at all, certainly any of significance.

And, for an organisation led by someone meant to be media savvy, I don't think they handled the publicity around it well at all. If they decided to do it, (a) they should have expected the shitstorm of criticism and (b) they should have had some proactive media strategy in place to either defuse or answer it.

 

[pk]

Stop fucking about pk.

Are you familiar with the story of the boy who cried wolf?

 

[Jazzz]

yeah - he grew up.

 

[Jazzz]

on a lighter note...

Anyway... turns out that the original photograph has been suspiciously tampered with! The original negative shows that certain objects have been 'edited out' of the frame. This is what really went on!

 

[8den]

Anyway... turns out that the original photograph has been suspiciously tampered with! The original negative shows that certain objects have been 'edited out' of the frame. This is what really went on!

Dear users a poll

What is more pathetic;

A) Jazzz, who starts a thread on an daft improbability that a journalists admits claims that the most high profile murder of an assassin was faked. After pages of accurate ridicule (in which in he makes some daft, some retarded and several offensive claims) he decides to link to a "humourous" photoshop of the crime scene, which is essentially a piss take on conspiracy theories he champions.

B) the fact that this piece of photoshop is like over a decade old, not even approaching new.

Hey Jazzz, we're laughing at you, trying to join in, means that you're not joining in on the joke, you just look like the retard who joins in with the laughing and doesn't understand that the jokes on you...




Finally that xtra "z" in Jazzz is inducing homicidial urges in me. Every time I see it I feel like I'm in the presence of a 80s wine bar/nightclub in Sheffield.

 

[Jazzz]

I'm sorry newbie, did you say something?

 

[8den]

I'm sorry newbie, did you say something?

Wow. Is that it fuckwit for what?

I got pwd'd I cannot response to 8den's reponse I'll just make some point re newbie (Hey Jazz you fucking fuckwite care to mention the BAFT or the JREF blokes? or you just running away you fuking fukwit?)

I mean gawd the fact that you have more posts than me just means that you are like, totally more believably than me...

I'm not getting laughed at by some "holograpixic plenes" bullshit
hit

 

[Jazzz]

I do hope you are done

 

[Lock&Light]

yeah - he grew up.

In fact he didn't. In the original story the boy gets eaten when a real wolf appears and no-one believes the boy anymore.

 

[pk]

In fact he didn't. In the original story the boy gets eaten when a real wolf appears and no-one believes the boy anymore.

Precisely. Well done Lock&Light.

 

[bristol_citizen]

In fact he didn't. In the original story the boy gets eaten when a real wolf appears and no-one believes the boy anymore.

If you believe the official version...

 

[detective-boy]

If you believe the official version...

Precisely. It was a lizard in wolf's clothing ... that's what it was alright ...

 

[Blagsta]

Anyway... turns out that the original photograph has been suspiciously tampered with! The original negative shows that certain objects have been 'edited out' of the frame. This is what really went on!

Fair play, that's funny!

 

[Jessiedog]

That is one way of putting it. But the sequence of events means that no individual criminal offence was committed. The organisation is on trial for how it came to create such a misunderstanding. That is not a "corporate manslaughter" charge but that is only because the corporate manslaughter law in this country is so ineffective. It desperately needs revision and that has been acknowledged for some years. But it is an extremely difficult area to legislate upon.

If an organisation fucks up corporately then the individual employees actually doing / not doing the relevant act should NOT be scapegoated. If individuals are held to account personally - and that may be appropriate in some cases and not in others - then it should be those directing the organisation and / or the individual operation.

But we must always remember that it is simply impossible to eliminate mistakes altogether. Any criminal liability must be based on proof of particular negligence rather than simple position. And we must acknowledge (through the media) that, tragic though they are, mistakes will take place where actions have to be taken based on imperfect knowledge.

All understood and all "reasonable", d_b.

I think the problems with the Medusa defence, however, are still manifold.

The individuals and organisation involved in deploying Medusa are one and the same. It's a self perpetuating, tautological, set-piece defence that, inevitably, demonstrates resonable doubt and yet disappears up its own arse in a whisp of smoke when you try and nail down where communication went wrong.

Those involved are also (or ought to be,) far better informed as to the legal process than Mr/Ms Cho public - they know how to work "the system".

This insight by definition, extends to an intimate knowledge of "criminality" and is further informed by some of the best legal practicioners available.

It is hardly unknown that the police tend to "close ranks" in circumstances of this ilk.

The defence is, almost, watertight. In a government/media-invoked "atmosphere of fear", if any "disciplined" individual is given a gun and told that Medusa is on the loose and frenzied, then dancing dreadlock dudes are going to be gunned down.

In the absence of Medusa, shooting someone under similar conditions would, no doubt, be prosecuted. This demonstrates the power of Medusa and illustrates its centrality in the decision not to proceed with charges.

It's a systemic problem.

Given the power of Medusa, it is imperative that systems are in place to identify, clearly, the chain of command and the communications that flow through it. These systems need to be designed specifically to capture, and accurately pinpoint, failures.

The absence of such systems indicates the malaise.


A balance must obviously be struck between autonomy and rules, but while Medusa is around, it would seem the rules need to be tightened.

This is certainly a widespread perception.

And there is a fair amount of evidence to support the suspicion that things are a wee bit broke.

It would seem there are reports that one of the same chaps that triggered poor Mendoza may have shot and killed another man today. That may seem fair enough if reports that the killed man was robbing a building society at the time and fired a sawn-off shotgun at the cops are true. A "good kill".

But surely it begs the question of what kind of wisdom lies in a system that puts a man back on the street with a gun at this time?

And also serves to raise again the issue of precisely who is responsible for monitoring, managing and improving this system, and why they have failed so deeply in their duty?

I guess we'll never know.

One whiff of the Medusa defence and the Genie disappears in a puff of smoke. What possible incentive is there for the individuals and groups that comprise the police service to even think of any reforms that may shine a light more closely into this can of worms?

I see none.

That's part of the systemic problem.



Woof

 

[Jessiedog]

Fair play, that's funny!

Aye!



Woof

 

[Jessiedog]

Precisely. It was a lizard in wolf's clothing ... that's what it was alright ...

Heh!

That's what "they" want you to believe.



Woof

 

[detective-boy]

The absence of such systems indicates the malaise.

This is certainly a widespread perception.

But surely it begs the question of what kind of wisdom lies in a system that puts a man back on the street with a gun at this time?

And also serves to raise again the issue of precisely who is responsible for monitoring, managing and improving this system, and why they have failed so deeply in their duty?

There are systems in place to try and prevent anyone getting killed by police action .. but the reality of the situation is that as long as you have people willing to go out there armed with guns and worse, to commit robbery, to kill and to blow up tube trains, there must be an armed response and there will be circumstances in which shots are fired and poeple die.

The public perception is not necessarily correct - I spend a lot of time on threads here trying to inform people of what the true situation really is. I agree that far more could be done - in terms of police openness about the dificulties they face and the tactics they use, and in terms of a public examination of what happened, and public explanation of any decision by the CPS not to prosecute, in the aftermath.

There is a genuine question to ask whether or not the individual officers should have been back on operational duty whilst a corporate prosecution is still pending. (Although I think it is quite reasonable that they returned to duty when the individual outcome was known I can see there is a valid argument that it should have been delayed until the conclusion of the H&S prosecution).

The police themselves are responsible for learning from events and constantly seeking new and better ways of doing things. The IPCC are responsible for independent investigation, the CPS for deciding on prosecutions and the government for overseeing the whole thing. But please don't assume that just because someone else has been killed that something/someone has failed - it may have done, but it may not (I suspect not as the circumstances are so different).