Menzies killing verdict limitations

Surfer

Surfer

Surfer

Soldato
Joined
31 Dec 2005
Posts
11,179
Location
Glasgow
What do you folks think of this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7760684.stm

Why is it they are "allowed" to give a verdict of lawful killing? (or open verdict) So theres enough evidence for it to be a lawful killing but not enough for it to be an unlawful killing hrmm ok....

Apparently from what ive read during this case: he's sitting calmly in a seat on the underground train. Plain clothes police officers run up to him and shoot him in the head - no warning or anything.

Struggling to identify that with a "lawful killing": only reason i can think is that they thought he had his hands on some kind of bomb trigger so shoot first ask questions later? But if he was a terrorist why did he let them put a gun to his head? ??? He would have blown the bomb well before that surely?
 
We obviously do not have the full facts here (and quite possibly never will) but some of the directions seem to run counter to what I'd consider to be fair in the evaluation of evidence. If it was an unlawful killing i.e. one that could not be excused by the facts of the case then it should be possible to return such a verdict. Additionally directing that the verdict could not be inconsistent with that returned about Cressida Dick's personal responsibility seems to go a shade far in shaping the result - I can understand why an inconsistency is not desirable obviously but that should really be something to consider after the result is returned if you do not want to risk prejudicing the options.
 
the article said:
But in narrowing down the choice of verdict, he added: "All interested persons agree that a verdict of unlawful killing could only be left to you if you could be sure that a specific officer had committed a very serious crime - murder or manslaughter."
Click to expand...
Put simply, it wasn't really one persons fault, and definitely not those who actually shot de Menezes. It was a collection of ****-ups combined with some bad decisions.

EDIT: To expand, from what little I know of the case, I'd put more blame on the unnamed officer who just hapened to be having a slash when de Menezes originally left his house, or those who failed to tell the difference a Brazilian man with hair and a middle eastern bald man, but you can't go and actually convict them for their superiors giving the order to kill.
 
Last edited:
Skull said:
I thought it was fairly well established that he ran from them.
Click to expand...

I was of the understanding that he did not run from police nor jump the barriers

Not a great source I know but the wiki article backs this up

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

He was also here legally before anyone brings that up

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/11/stockwell_one_systems_failures/page3.html

The Register noted some time ago that a Home Office statement on the subject of de Menezes' immigration status (which was questioned by 'sources' immediately after the shooting) did not confirm categorically that the Indefinite Leave to Remain stamp in his passport was forged. We would therefore like to draw readers' attention to the note on page 21 of the Stockwell One Report which states: "Evidence emerged during the course of the criminal trial into the Health and Safety charge that Mr de Menezes was lawfully in the country on 22 July 2005."
Click to expand...

:)
 
Skull said:
I thought it was fairly well established that he ran from them.
Click to expand...
Nope. He went to get on a tube train to work, found the station closed, got on a bus to the next nearest station, got a ticket, passed through the barriers, and went to sit down on the train. The armed police, who had jumped the barriers and charged down the stairs to get to him before the train left, then boarded the carriage and shot him in the head.

There was a good BBC article ages back about the proepr timeline of events. It made for pretty stark reading.

EDIT: Oh, it's there on the right of the linked article, under "BACKGROUND"
 
So the officers who pulled the trigger and blew Menezes away on that train have no culpability whatsoever? Was "I followed orders" a defence at Nuremburg? Why is it now?

De Menezes did not act, or look like a suicide bomber, at least from the evidence that is available (including the official report). He was restrained in his seat and shot repeatedly at point blank range - that to me suggests it was known he did not have a bomb on him.
 
I can't see why a police officer would deliberately shoot a man he knew to be unarmed. This is what it rests on for me - where is the motive to shoot a man if you KNOW he isn't armed?
 
sr4470 said:
So the officers who pulled the trigger and blew Menezes away on that train have no culpability whatsoever? Was "I followed orders" a defence at Nuremburg? Why is it now?

De Menezes did not act, or look like a suicide bomber, at least from the evidence that is available (including the official report). He was restrained in his seat and shot repeatedly at point blank range - that to me suggests it was known he did not have a bomb on him.
Click to expand...

do suicide bombers act and look a certain way?
 
JBuk said:
do suicide bombers act and look a certain way?
Click to expand...

That is irrelevant if de Menezes was known to be carrying nothing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7667845.stm
The Special Branch officer, named as Owen, said he deleted a line from computer notes which quoted Deputy Assistant Commissioner Cressida Dick.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission said it would investigate.

Brazilian Mr de Menezes, 27, was killed by police who mistook him for one of the failed 21 July 2005 bombers.

Owen, a surveillance officer, told the inquest the deleted line claimed Ms Dick had initially said the electrician could "run onto Tube as not carrying anything".

But on Monday he said: "On reflection, I looked at that and thought I cannot actually say that."...
Click to expand...
 
sr4470 said:
De Menezes did not act, or look like a suicide bomber, at least from the evidence that is available (including the official report). He was restrained in his seat and shot repeatedly at point blank range - that to me suggests it was known he did not have a bomb on him.
Click to expand...
For me though, that's a fault of the surveillance teams, and those in charge, who failed to act properly giving out orders. The firearms teams had literally just arrived on the scene, and were being shouted at to get down the stairs and shoot de Menzes before he blew up a tube train. Hell, they very nearly shot one of their own surveillance officers in the confusion.

[TW]Fox;13010382 said:
I can't see why a police officer would deliberately shoot a man he knew to be unarmed. This is what it rests on for me - where is the motive to shoot a man if you KNOW he isn't armed?
Click to expand...
I believe the fear was that he had some kind of quick-contact trigger device for an explosive. As I said, the firearms team had no idea he wasn't armed.
 
From what I had read previously, there were a number of errors leading up to the shooting that meant that the officers on the train were out of radio contact, poorly briefed but believed they were chasing a man who was not Menezes, but a man who had been positively ID'd as a failed bomber.

As fox said, they would have not have shot him if they did not believe that at that very time, their own lives, and everyone else's on the train was at risk.

The system let them down, they believed they were doing the best thing possible with the information provided to them prior to losing radio contact.
 
JBuk said:
it was you that said it :confused:
Click to expand...

The initial claims were de Menezes was a suicide bomber because he was wearing a heavy jacket with wires coming out of it. Those were false claims.

The Special Branch officer felt that he had to cover up the fact Menezes had nothing of the sort on him, even when Cressida Dick was the one saying it.

Weebull said:
For me though, that's a fault of the surveillance teams, and those in charge, who failed to act properly giving out orders. The firearms teams had literally just arrived on the scene, and were being shouted at to get down the stairs and shoot de Menzes before he blew up a tube train. Hell, they very nearly shot one of their own surveillance officers in the confusion.
Click to expand...

See above. So in that case, why isn't Cressida Dick and the officer named as "Owen" getting in trouble?
 
sr4470 said:
So the officers who pulled the trigger and blew Menezes away on that train have no culpability whatsoever? Was "I followed orders" a defence at Nuremburg? Why is it now?
Click to expand...

Well the main difference is that when the armed police officers received the order to shoot Menezes, they believed that they were shooting a suicide bomber - not someone who was guilty of nothing more than belonging to the wrong ethnic group.

The way the system is set up is that an officer higher up in the chain takes the decision to shoot or don't shoot, and therefore should take the responsibility for this monumental ****-up. Of course, under the PC PC, it wouldn't do to discipline one of the few senior women police officers would it?
 
sr4470 said:
So the officers who pulled the trigger and blew Menezes away on that train have no culpability whatsoever? Was "I followed orders" a defence at Nuremburg? Why is it now?

De Menezes did not act, or look like a suicide bomber, at least from the evidence that is available (including the official report). He was restrained in his seat and shot repeatedly at point blank range - that to me suggests it was known he did not have a bomb on him.
Click to expand...

So why did a police officer who knew he wasn't a threat repeatedly shoot him?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom