What happened: Death of Jean Charles de Menezes

[Prufrock]

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.

[William the White]

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.

In what way?

[Lord Kangana]

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.

[Hoboh]

Dead easy the Police fecked up! The bad thing is they are getting off virtually scott free with it.
If you cock up and it results in someones death you should be brought to book!

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

It was a very 'institutional' failure, that came about in the most extenuating circumstances possible. I think the coroner was absolutely right to judge that individual criminal liability would be inappropriate. This wasn't incompetence marked by a reckless or wilful disregard for human life on the part of any individual - quite the opposite.

And if there is not a presumption against finding criminal liability when police do the best job they can in very trying circumstances, the quality of person who fancies putting their head above the parapet and performing these key roles is hardly likely to improve, is it?

Enough lives have been ruined by the terrorist activity, especially those of de Menezes' relatives - do we really benefit as a society if we ruin a few more within the Metropolitan Police?

[Hoboh]

It was a very 'institutional' failure, that came about in the most extenuating circumstances possible. I think the coroner was absolutely right to judge that individual criminal liability would be inappropriate. This wasn't incompetence marked by a reckless or wilful disregard for human life on the part of any individual - quite the opposite.
And if there is not a presumption against finding criminal liability when police do the best job they can in very trying circumstances, the quality of person who fancies putting their head above the parapet and performing these key roles is hardly likely to improve, is it?

Enough lives have been ruined by the terrorist activity, especially those of the de Menezes' relatives - do we really benefit as a society if we ruin a few more within the Metropolitan Police?

You are having me on here are you not?

Discharging shots in a public place when there are so many people about is not reckless? What the hell is then?

[William the White]

It was a very 'institutional' failure, that came about in the most extenuating circumstances possible. I think the coroner was absolutely right to judge that individual criminal liability would be inappropriate. This wasn't incompetence marked by a reckless or wilful disregard for human life on the part of any individual - quite the opposite.

And if there is not a presumption against finding criminal liability when police do the best job they can in very trying circumstances, the quality of person who fancies putting their head above the parapet and performing these key roles is hardly likely to improve, is it?

Enough lives have been ruined by the terrorist activity, especially those of the de Menezes' relatives - do we really benefit as a society if we ruin a few more within the Metropolitan Police?

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.

[Prufrock]

It was a very 'institutional' failure, that came about in the most extenuating circumstances possible. I think the coroner was absolutely right to judge that individual criminal liability would be inappropriate. This wasn't incompetence marked by a reckless or wilful disregard for human life on the part of any individual - quite the opposite.
And if there is not a presumption against finding criminal liability when police do the best job they can in very trying circumstances, the quality of person who fancies putting their head above the parapet and performing these key roles is hardly likely to improve, is it?

Enough lives have been ruined by the terrorist activity, especially those of the de Menezes' relatives - do we really benefit as a society if we ruin a few more within the Metropolitan Police?

You are having me on here are you not?

Discharging shots in a public place when there are so many people about is not reckless? What the hell is then?

Allowing somebody the best intelligence you have says could well be a terrorist onto a tube train. That would just about do it for me.

[William the White]

It was a very 'institutional' failure, that came about in the most extenuating circumstances possible. I think the coroner was absolutely right to judge that individual criminal liability would be inappropriate. This wasn't incompetence marked by a reckless or wilful disregard for human life on the part of any individual - quite the opposite.
And if there is not a presumption against finding criminal liability when police do the best job they can in very trying circumstances, the quality of person who fancies putting their head above the parapet and performing these key roles is hardly likely to improve, is it?

Enough lives have been ruined by the terrorist activity, especially those of the de Menezes' relatives - do we really benefit as a society if we ruin a few more within the Metropolitan Police?

You are having me on here are you not?

Discharging shots in a public place when there are so many people about is not reckless? What the hell is then?

Allowing somebody the best intelligence you have says could well be a terrorist onto a tube train. That would just about do it for me.[/quote]

Then they have to lie about it? So they are standing tall and proud?

[Prufrock]

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.

In what way?

The police end up killing a man who in fact was no danger. The lawyer guy's suicide note revealed he hadnt been trying to hurt anyone, just to get the police to kill him. Therefore he wasn't in fact dangerous, so with hindsight the police didnt need to shoot him. The police thought De Menezes was a terrorist, with hindsight he wasn't so they didnt need to shoot him. In both cases a police officer took one of if not the hardest possible decison anyone could face in order to save the lifes of others. Both acted in good faith,both it turns out needn't have given the order.

[William the White]

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.

In what way?

The police end up killing a man who in fact was no danger. The lawyer guy's suicide note revealed he hadnt been trying to hurt anyone, just to get the police to kill him. Therefore he wasn't in fact dangerous, so with hindsight the police didnt need to shoot him. The police thought De Menezes was a terrorist, with hindsight he wasn't so they didnt need to shoot him. In both cases a police officer took one of if not the hardest possible decison anyone could face in order to save the lifes of others. Both acted in good faith,both it turns out needn't have given the order.

And here's me thinking that the fact that one man wanted the police to kill him, and the other wanted to take a tube journey made them definitively different... Silly me... FFS!

[Prufrock]

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?

[Prufrock]

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.

In what way?

The police end up killing a man who in fact was no danger. The lawyer guy's suicide note revealed he hadnt been trying to hurt anyone, just to get the police to kill him. Therefore he wasn't in fact dangerous, so with hindsight the police didnt need to shoot him. The police thought De Menezes was a terrorist, with hindsight he wasn't so they didnt need to shoot him. In both cases a police officer took one of if not the hardest possible decison anyone could face in order to save the lifes of others. Both acted in good faith,both it turns out needn't have given the order.

And here's me thinking that the fact that one man wanted the police to kill him, and the other wanted to take a tube journey made them definitively different... Silly me... FFS!

The police point of view at the time the two decisions were made was identical. It turned out that in the end both didnt need to be shot as they werent a danger to other people. In terms of police respnse that is all that matters. Just because the lawyer wanted the police to shoot him, doesnt mean they should have done for that reason.

[William the White]

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?

They may well exist, but i haven't come across them. Who are the people advocating murder charges?

[William the White]

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.

In what way?

The police end up killing a man who in fact was no danger. The lawyer guy's suicide note revealed he hadnt been trying to hurt anyone, just to get the police to kill him. Therefore he wasn't in fact dangerous, so with hindsight the police didnt need to shoot him. The police thought De Menezes was a terrorist, with hindsight he wasn't so they didnt need to shoot him. In both cases a police officer took one of if not the hardest possible decison anyone could face in order to save the lifes of others. Both acted in good faith,both it turns out needn't have given the order.

And here's me thinking that the fact that one man wanted the police to kill him, and the other wanted to take a tube journey made them definitively different... Silly me... FFS!

The police point of view at the time the two decisions were made was identical. It turned out that in the end both didnt need to be shot as they werent a danger to other people. In terms of police respnse that is all that matters. Just because the lawyer wanted the police to shoot him, doesnt mean they should have done for that reason.

One is waving a shotgun, the other is sitting on the tube?

Hole. stop digging. there is no similarity here.

[Prufrock]

It was a very 'institutional' failure, that came about in the most extenuating circumstances possible. I think the coroner was absolutely right to judge that individual criminal liability would be inappropriate. This wasn't incompetence marked by a reckless or wilful disregard for human life on the part of any individual - quite the opposite.

And if there is not a presumption against finding criminal liability when police do the best job they can in very trying circumstances, the quality of person who fancies putting their head above the parapet and performing these key roles is hardly likely to improve, is it?

Enough lives have been ruined by the terrorist activity, especially those of the de Menezes' relatives - do we really benefit as a society if we ruin a few more within the Metropolitan Police?

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.

The first thing that came to mind, although not being a lawyer man, this might be bollicks, was that perhaps it is because the case has been so publicised, and the coroner felt there has been a lot of misinformation in the news and the newspapers which could sway the jury to a vote which wasn't based purely on the evidence at the hearing? PB?

[Prufrock]

In what way?

The police end up killing a man who in fact was no danger. The lawyer guy's suicide note revealed he hadnt been trying to hurt anyone, just to get the police to kill him. Therefore he wasn't in fact dangerous, so with hindsight the police didnt need to shoot him. The police thought De Menezes was a terrorist, with hindsight he wasn't so they didnt need to shoot him. In both cases a police officer took one of if not the hardest possible decison anyone could face in order to save the lifes of others. Both acted in good faith,both it turns out needn't have given the order.

And here's me thinking that the fact that one man wanted the police to kill him, and the other wanted to take a tube journey made them definitively different... Silly me... FFS!

The police point of view at the time the two decisions were made was identical. It turned out that in the end both didnt need to be shot as they werent a danger to other people. In terms of police respnse that is all that matters. Just because the lawyer wanted the police to shoot him, doesnt mean they should have done for that reason.

One is waving a shotgun, the other is sitting on the tube?

Hole. stop digging. there is no similarity here.

Man sitting on tube beleived to be carrying bomb. Fact he wasn't is just as relevant as fact the lawyer guy never intended to hurt anyone. Police didnt know either at the time. In both cases if they had that information, the order to kill wouldnt have been given.

[Prufrock]

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?

They may well exist, but i haven't come across them. Who are the people advocating murder charges?

There was someone earlier on this thread suggested murder, as well as negligence. Neither of which are appropriate IMO. Criminal charges against individuals who were following orders, intelligence, and protocol put in place for this eventuality cannot be strung up because of a misguided public lust for 'justice'. By all means scrutinise the system, find ways to make intelligece better, the chain of command better etc.. but whilst i dont agree with mummy that these crimes can be directly appropriated to the terrorists behind 7/7 and the failed attempt, i do agree with his point of how we expect to attract people to a tough, lowly paid job in which you might have to kill somebody in order to save lives if when things go wrong, despite their best efforts, they get hung out to dry.

[William the White]

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...

[Hoboh]

Actually what puzzles me is;

If the Police suspected him of carrying a bomb, given they had him under surveilance , Why the hell did they not stop or take him out when he left the flat instead of putting Joe public in danger? This for me is what stinks!
Or are our coppers totally stupid?