Shoot to Kill - Gagged Jury Verdict

What is your opinion now?

1 to 20 of 162 messages
12/12/2008 at 21:20
After more than 3 years of fighting for justice the whole of the evidence has now been heard in a public court.  The family of Jean Charles De Menezes said today "The jury’s verdict is a damning indictment of the multiple failures of the police and the lies they told. It is clear from the verdict today that the jury could have gone further had they not been gagged by the Coroner. We maintain that Jean Charles de Menezes was unlawfully killed".I agree wholeheartedly.The police had FIVE legal teams representing them, the family of Jean Charles had ONE.  Another leading member of the judicial service bowed to such pressure put on him and prevented the jury from reaching the verdict they would have done had they been allowed to do the job they were sworn in to do.  At every step of the way our ruling institutions have afforded the protection to, and allowed and assisted the Metropolitan Police to lie, to blunder and to execute innocent people without any accountability whatsoever.However, in reaching their "open verdict" A PUBLIC JURY have said the police clearly lied; that Jean was completely innocent; and that from the moment Jean entered Stockwell tube station he was doomed to be shot dead without warning.  It is clear the jury would have reached the verdict of unlawful killing had they been allowed to do so.  Just 2 hours after retiring to consider their verdict the jury came back to the Coroner and asked if they could provide a narrative that best explained what they believed to be the truth and they were denied, effectively gagged.The evidence against the police was overwhelming. When it came to the actual moments when Jean was shot the PUBLIC JURY chose to believe the evidence of MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC as opposed to the contrived evidence of those given the responsibility to protect us - THE POLICE. How damning of the police and their operation is that?The family are looking to appeal to the CPS, the IPCC and the Police themselves to review their files in light of the jury's verdict to see that charges, or action, be taken against those responsible for the summary execution of this innocent man.  They are also calling on the Home secretary to instigate a full judicial review on the legality of the Shoot to Kill policy.On the other hand it is satisfying to hear the new Metropolitan Police Commissioner stand up and apologise for the death of Jean Charles and accept responsibility.  That must give some comfort to the family but it is a shallow comfort when there is no accountability.  Our country, and the principles of justice and freedom, has to stand by the principle that there also has to be ACCOUNTABILITY too.  Without accountability there is no justice and there is no reassurance to us as citizens of the UK that we cannot be gunned down and executed by our own police force. 
12/12/2008 at 21:23
Personally, when I heard that the police had apparently terminated with extreme prejudice a suicide bomber I thought "Great". That's what we need to do. I was as horrified as anyone else when it turned out to have been a complete cock-up. It doesn't change my previous sentiments: I think the police need to be ready to push the button on anyone threatening to commit an act of terrorism but they need to be sure of their facts.

Bear in mind too that de Menezes was one of thousands of people illegally staying here after his visa had expired. If he'd obeyed the law and left when he was supposed to it would never have happened. This doesn't excuse what happened to him but he certainly made a bad choice which may well have cost him his life.
12/12/2008 at 22:04
Keith Bancroft wrote (see)
..

Bear in mind too that de Menezes was one of thousands of people illegally staying here after his visa had expired. If he'd obeyed the law and left when he was supposed to it would never have happened. This doesn't excuse what happened to him but he certainly made a bad choice which may well have cost him his life.

Wow! His visa/immigration status is completely irrelevant to his death! I really can't believe you have written that.
Edited: 12/12/2008 at 22:05
12/12/2008 at 22:06
Andrew - the constraint put upon the jury was an outrageous one in a supposedly free democratic state. A public inquiry is in order, not to mention a re-run of the hearing, with the jury free to decide on their verdict.
12/12/2008 at 22:21

I've not looked into it in any depth but just off the cuff I feel that constraining the jury in this manner really has me bordering on disbelief!

In fairness to the firearms officers involved, I doubt they'd been trained in how to react to a possible suicide bomber, and tensions were running high so soon after 7/11 but at the end of the day someone needs to be accountable. An open verdict is not good enough IMO.

Humm, reminds me of the Hutton Inquiry.

Edited: 12/12/2008 at 22:21
12/12/2008 at 22:53

It was clearly a horrible mistake, what is not clear is what really lead to this. I am not sure that a criminal case against the officers involved would be in the public interest.

I don't think that any individual is culpable for the outcome. IMO the real criminality is in the web of lies that have been perpetrated by the authorities/police/government following the events.

it seems to me that the unecasary death of a young man has been swallowed upin a mountain of bureaucracy, as much of modern life and justice is.

12/12/2008 at 22:59
I'm still old enough to remember a shooting in London in the seventies where the Sweeny set about a mini car full of people gunning down the driver in cold blood fearing he was the then Britains no 1 wanted man. Sadly he was not the wanted man, but instead was merely someone working in tv production with the BBC, that merely was on his way to work at the wrong place and time to be mistaken for the real hunted killer. He only just survived the shooting as he sat in his car awaiting traffic lights to change, but thirty years on nothing much has changed it appears on London's streets! It is still shoot first and shoot to kill, and ask questions later! As it is too still on the streets of New York and Los Angeles, amongst other cities of the world still today.
Edited: 12/12/2008 at 23:06
12/12/2008 at 23:02

tl;dr

Whatever the rights or wrongs of the case the coroner was quite correct in ruling out a verdict of unlawful killing. The Met Police have already been tried in a court of law for the killing and no person was found guilty of murder/manslaughter,  A verdict of unlawful killing from a coroners court would have been incompatible with the earlier trial.

Argue with the results of the earlier trial if you like, but double jeopardy is still fundamental to our legal system

Edited: 12/12/2008 at 23:03
12/12/2008 at 23:11
The earlier court of law, there was not full disclosure of the evidence as in the coroners court. Again a failure of the system, and a swamping of reality by bureaucracy.
12/12/2008 at 23:16
Are you trying to say that evidence disclosed in the coroners court would have led to a different verdict in the trial?
Edited: 12/12/2008 at 23:17
12/12/2008 at 23:38

It puzzles me that the Police are accused of not shouting a warning before the shooting.  As I understand it, the normal procedure if it is considered necessary to shoot an armed man to protect others is to shout a warning and, if he fails to drop the weapon, aim for the torso.  In the case of people believed to be suicidal terrorists with explosives strapped to their bodies and in crowded places, multiple shots to the head are used instead because someone shot in the torso might still be able to set off the explosives.  In such cases shouting a warning sounds like a bad idea. I hope the police wouldn't do so if there was a genuine suicide bomber and I was nearby.

In the De Menezes case there were obviously failings in the procedures and decisions which led to the shooting, but I don't think anyone suggests that the officers who shot him believed anything other than that he was a suicide bomber.  That being so, any blame belongs elsewhere rather than with men who did a thoroughly unpleasant job in the belief that they were protecting the public.

12/12/2008 at 23:40
Tepee wrote (see)
Are you trying to say that evidence disclosed in the coroners court would have led to a different verdict in the trial?
yes!
12/12/2008 at 23:44
Well as I said in the first place you can argue with the results of the earlier trial if you like.
12/12/2008 at 23:55

Tepee, who are you?

Why do you have no info on your bio?

Why have you hidden your stats?

13/12/2008 at 00:05

I think Frum has it spot on. The officers that killed Mr De Menezes, unfortunate as his death was, did a very good job.

I truly feel for his family, and it's not something that anyone would like to see repeated I'm sure: -

 However, had he actually been a suicide bomber, the officers involved in his death would have been heroes(hero's?). They did a difficult job, extremely professionally. Further to this, those officers now have to live with the fact that, through no fault of their own, they killed an innocent man.

Not to say that what happened is a good thing, but the blame here is on the bad intel that they received, and that is a whole other beast entirely that is very difficult to narrow down.

13/12/2008 at 08:21
Neil Sheridan at mountainstuff.net/blog wrote (see)
Keith Bancroft wrote (see)
..

Bear in mind too that de Menezes was one of thousands of people illegally staying here after his visa had expired. If he'd obeyed the law and left when he was supposed to it would never have happened. This doesn't excuse what happened to him but he certainly made a bad choice which may well have cost him his life.

Wow! His visa/immigration status is completely irrelevant to his death! I really can't believe you have written that.

But that is why he was running from the police because it had expired and he thought they wanted him for it.Running from the law always gets a chase guilty or not and like said before tensions were high.

Frum has it spot on .The words of a wise old man

13/12/2008 at 08:36

I concur with Frum, the officers on the street were in belief that they were stopping a suicide bomber.  And in this instant they had to STOP him.  It is extremely unfortunate that he was not and my thoughts go out to his family but I can understand the officers on the ground doing their job which is extremely daunting.  They operate every day with the thought of life and death and the power to take it away and they have my profound respect for a difficult task.

I haven't looked into the coronors case myself but from what has been mentioned and my own experiences in coronors courts more information does normally come forward that does not make it into criminal cases and it is wrong if a jury is to withhold information but the judge must have a valid reason for this whatever it may be.

I'm sure that new rulings will soon be put in place for armed officers and the senior officials that give the orders to shoot.


If only there were more days in the week so I could spend more time out there.

13/12/2008 at 09:48

Tepee, who are you?

Why do you have no info on your bio?

Why have you hidden your stats?

How incredibly nosey of you! I dont go round checking anybody elses details, I dont see why people should be interested in mine. Having a professional interest in IT, I believe its very bad practice to publish any personal data on the web, so always leave a minimum of information as a matter of course - but as far as I know I haven't hidden any stats.

It seems I'm right to do so if people want to check up on me.Scary.

Edit: I have unchecked status in my profile, so it appears that unwittingly I've removed the stats from underneath my username on forum posts (obviously Frum has too, so I'm not alone).

Edited: 13/12/2008 at 10:10
13/12/2008 at 10:35

Frums Right.

So what should the Police do when suicide bombers are on the loose?

13/12/2008 at 10:41
Shoot everyone that looks 'dodgy'.

 

1 to 20 of 162 messages
Forum Jump  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter
Sign up to our twitter feed

Promotions