What happened: Death of Jean Charles de Menezes

If you have a life outside of BWFC, then this is the place to tell us all about your toilet habits, and those bizarre fetishes.......

Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em

mummywhycantieatcrayons
Legend
Legend
Posts: 7192
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:31 pm
Location: London

Post by mummywhycantieatcrayons » Sat Dec 13, 2008 12:56 am

William the White wrote: I understand your point entirely, though I don't agree with it.

Could i ask you - and I do this with no polemical intention whatsoever, i have never studied law, and i know you do - why you think it 'absolutely right' for the coroner to forbid the jury from coming to the 'unlawful killing' verdict? To me, a total layman, this looks like a simple cover up. Juries, from time to time, have a habit of stopping that happening. good on them. The coroner offered 'lawful killing' (????????) and an open verdict, and many commentators are suggesting the jury wanted to go further than that. What are the circumstances whereby a jury might come to an 'unlawful killing' verdict? And does this inevitably lead to criminal charges? [since you talk of criminal liability]?

Once again - I find it distasteful that you seek to displace the responsibility for this death from the perpetrators to some amorphous 'terrorists' not there on that morning in south london.
Well, I think the judge was right to conclude that a an unlawful killing verdict was inappropriate in this case, as he was within his discretion to decide. An unlawful killing verdict can only be found when it is thought that an individual is guilty of murder or mansluaghter, and the judge felt that this was not supoorted by the evidence. It's not a whitewash - why would it be in the coroner's interests to assist a 'cover up'?

And yes, a finding of unlawful killing almost inevitably leads to a criminal investigation and charges.

Do you find all opinions that run contrary to your own 'distasteful'? It is my view that it was a terrible accident that resulted from a series of mistakes made by an institution not properly equipped to deal with the new, terrible circumstances it was faced with. Thos terrible circumstances were created by the terrorists.
Prufrock wrote: Like money hasn't always talked. You might not like it, or disagree, but it's the truth. It's a basic incentive, people always have, and always will want what's best for themselves and their families

Lord Kangana
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 15355
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:42 pm
Location: Vagantes numquam erramus

Post by Lord Kangana » Sat Dec 13, 2008 12:57 am

Prufrock wrote:
Lord Kangana wrote:
Prufrock wrote:
Lord Kangana wrote:Put simply Pru, the Police have to perform to a higher standard than the average killer. The day we start having a debate based on "well they started it" is the day to give up, we will always face threats, they cannot be used as an excuse to lower our standards.
Agreed, im not saying we should all just forget about this and mark it down as 'a shame'. Something went wrong, but the police involved were acting in good faith. They were trying to save people from a terrorist attack. Its the personal witch-hunt and demand for murder chanrges etc.. i dont get. Everyone makes mistakes, it's just for most of us, it doesnt cost an innocent man his life. That's a brave job to do, one i don't think i could do, and even with the best people with the best training, sometimes things will go wrong. Tragedies happen. The review should look at ways of trying to stop this happening again, but no-one can make promises. All people can do is follow the systems and plans put in place, and then hopefully have the judgement when it comes to making a very tough call. What if De Menezes had been a terrorist, and they'd let him go? They should have known he wasn't but they clearly weren't sure, it's not like they thought 'feck it, let's just shoot him anyway'.

It's like when there was an outcry from the familly of that lawyer guy police shot. He was waving a shotgun around ffs (which it later turned out was a deliberate suicide ploy), and still people demanded to know why the police killed him. I can understand De Menezes' familly being devastated, and wanting answers, and even revenge, but i don't think blood lust and the demand for a scapegoat should dictate public opinion. If someone has been wilfully negligent, throw the book at them, if as the coroner seems to think, that honest mistakes and bad fortune were the cause of this, then people shouldn't be getting up on soapboxes demanding murder charges.
And most of us don't get to carry firearms around as part of our job. Its fundamental to the issue that you can't move the goalposts because we have preconceptions about a particular job. Justice is justice. "Ooops, sorry" is hardly a compelling defence.
It isn't I who is moving the goalposts. If you make an honest mistake at work, you dont get faced with criminal charges. If you deliberately sabbotage, or defraud, you do get criminal charges. Because an innocent man has died, there is a bloodlust for revenge that folk jump on demanding revenge and criminal charges. Who exactly are people suggesting be charged with murder? The guy who took the shot, following a direct order? The guy who gave the order, following the intelligence he had? If not those two, then who?
Erm, yes I do, and I might add sorry is not a defence.
You can judge the whole world on the sparkle that you think it lacks.
Yes, you can stare into the abyss, but it's staring right back.

User avatar
Hoboh
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 13304
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 8:19 am

Post by Hoboh » Sat Dec 13, 2008 12:59 am

mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:
William the White wrote: I understand your point entirely, though I don't agree with it.

Could i ask you - and I do this with no polemical intention whatsoever, i have never studied law, and i know you do - why you think it 'absolutely right' for the coroner to forbid the jury from coming to the 'unlawful killing' verdict? To me, a total layman, this looks like a simple cover up. Juries, from time to time, have a habit of stopping that happening. good on them. The coroner offered 'lawful killing' (????????) and an open verdict, and many commentators are suggesting the jury wanted to go further than that. What are the circumstances whereby a jury might come to an 'unlawful killing' verdict? And does this inevitably lead to criminal charges? [since you talk of criminal liability]?

Once again - I find it distasteful that you seek to displace the responsibility for this death from the perpetrators to some amorphous 'terrorists' not there on that morning in south london.
Well, I think the judge was right to conclude that a an unlawful killing verdict was inappropriate in this case, as he was within his discretion to decide. An unlawful killing verdict can only be found when it is thought that an individual is guilty of murder or mansluaghter, and the judge felt that this was not supoorted by the evidence. It's not a whitewash - why would it be in the coroner's interests to assist a 'cover up'?

And yes, a finding of unlawful killing almost inevitably leads to a criminal investigation and charges.

Do you find all opinions that run contrary to your own 'distasteful'? It is my view that it was a terrible accident that resulted from a series of mistakes made by an institution not properly equipped to deal with the new, terrible circumstances it was faced with. Thos terrible circumstances were created by the terrorists.
Mummy, not to be too pedandantic in most peoples book a cock up and an accident are two different things.

mummywhycantieatcrayons
Legend
Legend
Posts: 7192
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:31 pm
Location: London

Post by mummywhycantieatcrayons » Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:02 am

The coroner said himself that there was a cock up.

It's not a black and white thing though - does an individual have to be found guilty of homicide for the cock up to be recognised properly?
Prufrock wrote: Like money hasn't always talked. You might not like it, or disagree, but it's the truth. It's a basic incentive, people always have, and always will want what's best for themselves and their families

User avatar
Prufrock
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 23959
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:51 pm

Post by Prufrock » Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:04 am

William the White wrote:Hey, Pruey, i'm close to giving up...

If all that matters is what police 'believe' there's no space for law or judgement whatsoever...

i believed the earth was flat, m'lud...

i believed it would send me to heaven, m'lud...

law is based on evidence...

the evidence of somebody waving a shotgun is persuasive...

there was no evidence - whatever the police 'believed' - that a brazilian man was a terrorist bomber...

have the last say, i'm not doing this one any more...

i've just put a bet on that you'll retreat from the idiocy...

got 1000-1 against...
I wont argue with a word of that (apart from the earth is flat one which there is no evidence of any real number of people ever beleiving), only i will say we know what we know now with hindsight. Some of the greatest minds to have ever walked this earth have believed ludicrous things, we don't retrospectively judge them as stupid because we now know they were wrong. By all means demand to know why the police didn't have the correct knowledge at the time, by all means demand systems be improved so that in the future similar tragedies can be avoided, but you cannot start retrospectively bringing criminal charges against individuals working honestly to what they beleived to be the facts.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.

mummywhycantieatcrayons
Legend
Legend
Posts: 7192
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:31 pm
Location: London

Post by mummywhycantieatcrayons » Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:08 am

William the White wrote:Hey, Pruey, i'm close to giving up...

If all that matters is what police 'believe' there's no space for law or judgement whatsoever...

i believed the earth was flat, m'lud...

i believed it would send me to heaven, m'lud...

law is based on evidence...

the evidence of somebody waving a shotgun is persuasive...

there was no evidence - whatever the police 'believed' - that a brazilian man was a terrorist bomber...

have the last say, i'm not doing this one any more...

i've just put a bet on that you'll retreat from the idiocy...

got 1000-1 against...
Actually, individual beliefs and subjective intentions are all very important in the law. Often what's important is whether they're reasonable or not.

The police, rightly in my view, are given some latitude in this respect, given the extraordinary role they have to perform.
Prufrock wrote: Like money hasn't always talked. You might not like it, or disagree, but it's the truth. It's a basic incentive, people always have, and always will want what's best for themselves and their families

User avatar
Hoboh
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 13304
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 8:19 am

Post by Hoboh » Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:08 am

mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:The coroner said himself that there was a cock up.

It's not a black and white thing though - does an individual have to be found guilty of homicide for the cock up to be recognised properly?
Not being an expert, surely in legal ways a cock up means someone is more anserable for than an accident?, bit like I skidded on a corner because I hit black Ice as opposed to i was going a little too quickly or am I that pissed :D

User avatar
Hoboh
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 13304
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 8:19 am

Post by Hoboh » Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:11 am

Prufrock wrote:
William the White wrote:Hey, Pruey, i'm close to giving up...

If all that matters is what police 'believe' there's no space for law or judgement whatsoever...

i believed the earth was flat, m'lud...

i believed it would send me to heaven, m'lud...

law is based on evidence...

the evidence of somebody waving a shotgun is persuasive...

there was no evidence - whatever the police 'believed' - that a brazilian man was a terrorist bomber...

have the last say, i'm not doing this one any more...

i've just put a bet on that you'll retreat from the idiocy...

got 1000-1 against...
I wont argue with a word of that (apart from the earth is flat one which there is no evidence of any real number of people ever beleiving), only i will say we know what we know now with hindsight. Some of the greatest minds to have ever walked this earth have believed ludicrous things, we don't retrospectively judge them as stupid because we now know they were wrong. By all means demand to know why the police didn't have the correct knowledge at the time, by all means demand systems be improved so that in the future similar tragedies can be avoided, but you cannot start retrospectively bringing criminal charges against individuals working honestly to what they beleived to be the facts.
Actually i don't blame the shooters it is the spooks that gave them the wrong intel that should be brought to book!!! IMO of course

William the White
Legend
Legend
Posts: 8454
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:43 pm
Location: Trotter Shop

Post by William the White » Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:15 am

mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:
William the White wrote: I understand your point entirely, though I don't agree with it.

Could i ask you - and I do this with no polemical intention whatsoever, i have never studied law, and i know you do - why you think it 'absolutely right' for the coroner to forbid the jury from coming to the 'unlawful killing' verdict? To me, a total layman, this looks like a simple cover up. Juries, from time to time, have a habit of stopping that happening. good on them. The coroner offered 'lawful killing' (????????) and an open verdict, and many commentators are suggesting the jury wanted to go further than that. What are the circumstances whereby a jury might come to an 'unlawful killing' verdict? And does this inevitably lead to criminal charges? [since you talk of criminal liability]?

Once again - I find it distasteful that you seek to displace the responsibility for this death from the perpetrators to some amorphous 'terrorists' not there on that morning in south london.
Well, I think the judge was right to conclude that a an unlawful killing verdict was inappropriate in this case, as he was within his discretion to decide. An unlawful killing verdict can only be found when it is thought that an individual is guilty of murder or mansluaghter, and the judge felt that this was not supoorted by the evidence. It's not a whitewash - why would it be in the coroner's interests to assist a 'cover up'?

And yes, a finding of unlawful killing almost inevitably leads to a criminal investigation and charges.

Do you find all opinions that run contrary to your own 'distasteful'? It is my view that it was a terrible accident that resulted from a series of mistakes made by an institution not properly equipped to deal with the new, terrible circumstances it was faced with. Thos terrible circumstances were created by the terrorists.
Again - non polemically - it makes me uncomfortable that the coroner did not allow the jury to take this decision. He could have, and they could have assessed the evidence and taken a decision that would require a criminal investigation - but not necessarily charges. But if there was criminal responsibility, and it led to charges, so be it.

I don't understand why you think there's anything wrong with that? The jury might still have agreed an open verdict.

They were forbidden from taking that option - no one is arguing that wasn't within his discretion, but all public servants exercise their discretion subject to public scrutiny. And question.

I do not find all opinions contrary to mine distasteful. And certainly not all of yours. For instance, I AGREE with you that we exist in new and terrible circumstances, created by the fact of terrorism.

Our response to that fact is a crucial, crucial decision. I don't know the coroner's motives, any more than you, but this is playing as a whitewash around the world. Does that give you any pause for thought?

Lord Kangana
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 15355
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:42 pm
Location: Vagantes numquam erramus

Post by Lord Kangana » Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:19 am

Theres so much more to this than the simple (though) tragic death of one man. The coroner effectively slammed shut the can of worms on exactly why and who gave the authority that lethal force should so be used on public transport. I hear the argument that these were heightened times, but the Police still operate in a hierarchical structure. Was a shoot to kill policy initiated after the events on the Tube? Were individual officers given a "license to kill" on their own initiative without recourse to higher authority? Does this mean ordinary checks and balances were ignored or disregarded, or indeed removed? And what does that say of us, and indeed our civil liberties?
You can judge the whole world on the sparkle that you think it lacks.
Yes, you can stare into the abyss, but it's staring right back.

William the White
Legend
Legend
Posts: 8454
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:43 pm
Location: Trotter Shop

Post by William the White » Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:23 am

mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:
William the White wrote:Hey, Pruey, i'm close to giving up...

If all that matters is what police 'believe' there's no space for law or judgement whatsoever...

i believed the earth was flat, m'lud...

i believed it would send me to heaven, m'lud...

law is based on evidence...

the evidence of somebody waving a shotgun is persuasive...

there was no evidence - whatever the police 'believed' - that a brazilian man was a terrorist bomber...

have the last say, i'm not doing this one any more...

i've just put a bet on that you'll retreat from the idiocy...

got 1000-1 against...
Actually, individual beliefs and subjective intentions are all very important in the law. Often what's important is whether they're reasonable or not.

The police, rightly in my view, are given some latitude in this respect, given the extraordinary role they have to perform.
But not legally, surely? The police are equal before the law? Do you really think they shouldn't be?

mummywhycantieatcrayons
Legend
Legend
Posts: 7192
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:31 pm
Location: London

Post by mummywhycantieatcrayons » Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:25 am

hoboh2o wrote:
mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:The coroner said himself that there was a cock up.

It's not a black and white thing though - does an individual have to be found guilty of homicide for the cock up to be recognised properly?
Not being an expert, surely in legal ways a cock up means someone is more anserable for than an accident?, bit like I skidded on a corner because I hit black Ice as opposed to i was going a little too quickly or am I that pissed :D
Depends what you mean by 'answerable' though. It's important to highlight what the mistakes were, who made them and why they were made.

Is finding individual police officers guilty of homicide the only appropriate way to deal with this honest mistake? What purpose would the jail time serve?
Prufrock wrote: Like money hasn't always talked. You might not like it, or disagree, but it's the truth. It's a basic incentive, people always have, and always will want what's best for themselves and their families

mummywhycantieatcrayons
Legend
Legend
Posts: 7192
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:31 pm
Location: London

Post by mummywhycantieatcrayons » Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:30 am

William the White wrote:But not legally, surely? The police are equal before the law? Do you really think they shouldn't be?
Yes, they're equal before the law. But if the law is that everyone must behave reasonably, then the law recognises that there are particular difficulties associated with being a police officer, and that mistakes are more likely to be reasonable if made in extremely trying circumstances.
Prufrock wrote: Like money hasn't always talked. You might not like it, or disagree, but it's the truth. It's a basic incentive, people always have, and always will want what's best for themselves and their families

User avatar
Hoboh
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 13304
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 8:19 am

Post by Hoboh » Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:34 am

What really troubles me is the Met Police shoot dead more people than any other force every year yet no one seems to be held to account!
Yes it is a stressfull spur of the min action, but chuffin hell you cannot bring folk back and just say "oh sorry we made a mistake"
Anyone who calls for ALL our police to be armed should bere this in mind.
If the goverment was able to deport suspected terrorists without Mrs blair and her money grabbing cronies objecting on human rights issues we may not be facing the problems we are now.
The Law and judges if mummy will forgive this are not places for these people to hide behind, mere suspision should be enough to deport.
If folk don't like our country then they should not come, I ain't in any way rasist if I lived in Spain or India or wereever then I would obey their laws and try to intergrate
Religion is a persons own personal belief not something to be inflicted upon others!

William the White
Legend
Legend
Posts: 8454
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:43 pm
Location: Trotter Shop

Post by William the White » Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:37 am

mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:
William the White wrote:But not legally, surely? The police are equal before the law? Do you really think they shouldn't be?
Yes, they're equal before the law. But if the law is that everyone must behave reasonably, then the law recognises that there are particular difficulties associated with being a police officer, and that mistakes are more likely to be reasonable if made in extremely trying circumstances.
I don't want to be especially pedantic here, but I don't know why the police would be special here - trying circumstances as a defence could - and should, if it is a defence - to anyone. I recognise, of course, that police may find themselves in 'trying circumstances' more frequently than us. But - I think you've clarified that it's the circumstances and not the job that offer a defence of rteasonable behaviour. Talk of 'latitude' is dodgy, i think.

Lord Kangana
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 15355
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:42 pm
Location: Vagantes numquam erramus

Post by Lord Kangana » Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:37 am

We're about to disagree on a whole host of levels here Hobo. Suspicion of anything is not enough to prove anything, and indeed act. And, god forbid, you're putting the walking smile Ms Booth on my side, then I s'pose my enemies enemy is my friend.
You can judge the whole world on the sparkle that you think it lacks.
Yes, you can stare into the abyss, but it's staring right back.

William the White
Legend
Legend
Posts: 8454
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:43 pm
Location: Trotter Shop

Post by William the White » Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:42 am

hoboh2o wrote:What really troubles me is the Met Police shoot dead more people than any other force every year yet no one seems to be held to account!
Yes it is a stressfull spur of the min action, but chuffin hell you cannot bring folk back and just say "oh sorry we made a mistake"
Anyone who calls for ALL our police to be armed should bere this in mind.
If the goverment was able to deport suspected terrorists without Mrs blair and her money grabbing cronies objecting on human rights issues we may not be facing the problems we are now.
The Law and judges if mummy will forgive this are not places for these people to hide behind, mere suspision should be enough to deport.
If folk don't like our country then they should not come, I ain't in any way rasist if I lived in Spain or India or wereever then I would obey their laws and try to intergrate
Religion is a persons own personal belief not something to be inflicted upon others!
Couldn't disagree more with this if you paid me a lot of money... Any state that takes action on suspicion alone is halfway to tyranny... And if you are referring to the 7/7 terrorists, well, they didn't 'come' here - they were born here...

So, to where could they be deported?

User avatar
Hoboh
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 13304
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 8:19 am

Post by Hoboh » Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:44 am

Lord Kangana wrote:We're about to disagree on a whole host of levels here Hobo. Suspicion of anything is not enough to prove anything, and indeed act. And, god forbid, you're putting the walking smile Ms Booth on my side, then I s'pose my enemies enemy is my friend.
Your Lordship when the security and well being of the people of this country is at stake then its more than enough!
Better a person gets deported alive than shot dead in a tube station or if he does not better he is deported than 60 people are blown up!
It really is a no brainer! IMO of corse :wink:

User avatar
Hoboh
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 13304
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 8:19 am

Post by Hoboh » Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:46 am

William the White wrote:
hoboh2o wrote:What really troubles me is the Met Police shoot dead more people than any other force every year yet no one seems to be held to account!
Yes it is a stressfull spur of the min action, but chuffin hell you cannot bring folk back and just say "oh sorry we made a mistake"
Anyone who calls for ALL our police to be armed should bere this in mind.
If the goverment was able to deport suspected terrorists without Mrs blair and her money grabbing cronies objecting on human rights issues we may not be facing the problems we are now.
The Law and judges if mummy will forgive this are not places for these people to hide behind, mere suspision should be enough to deport.
If folk don't like our country then they should not come, I ain't in any way rasist if I lived in Spain or India or wereever then I would obey their laws and try to intergrate
Religion is a persons own personal belief not something to be inflicted upon others!
Couldn't disagree more with this if you paid me a lot of money... Any state that takes action on suspicion alone is halfway to tyranny... And if you are referring to the 7/7 terrorists, well, they didn't 'come' here - they were born here...

So, to where could they be deported?
Easy their ancestral or ideaologigal homeland (that in truth does not exsist either)

William the White
Legend
Legend
Posts: 8454
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:43 pm
Location: Trotter Shop

Post by William the White » Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:49 am

hoboh2o wrote:
William the White wrote:
hoboh2o wrote:What really troubles me is the Met Police shoot dead more people than any other force every year yet no one seems to be held to account!
Yes it is a stressfull spur of the min action, but chuffin hell you cannot bring folk back and just say "oh sorry we made a mistake"
Anyone who calls for ALL our police to be armed should bere this in mind.
If the goverment was able to deport suspected terrorists without Mrs blair and her money grabbing cronies objecting on human rights issues we may not be facing the problems we are now.
The Law and judges if mummy will forgive this are not places for these people to hide behind, mere suspision should be enough to deport.
If folk don't like our country then they should not come, I ain't in any way rasist if I lived in Spain or India or wereever then I would obey their laws and try to intergrate
Religion is a persons own personal belief not something to be inflicted upon others!
Couldn't disagree more with this if you paid me a lot of money... Any state that takes action on suspicion alone is halfway to tyranny... And if you are referring to the 7/7 terrorists, well, they didn't 'come' here - they were born here...

So, to where could they be deported?
Easy their ancestral or ideaologigal homeland (that in truth does not exsist either)
So, since these don't exist, what should we do?

I presume you are not suggesting gas chambers or guantanamo bay on the Isle of Man?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 71 guests