Menzies killing verdict limitations

I saw this earlier and I think it is outrageous that the jury is being told they aren't allowed to give certain verdicts! It is pretty obvious they would give a verdict of unlawful killing because that's what it was.
 
dirtydog said:
I saw this earlier and I think it is outrageous that the jury is being told they aren't allowed to give certain verdicts! It is pretty obvious they would give a verdict of unlawful killing because that's what it was.
Click to expand...

Clearly you know a lot better than the coroner.
 
because you cant punish an armed officer for killing someone he was told to do.

and because you certainly cant get the person or people who gave the orders and provided the intel..

there isnt 1 word within anything else that needs to be heard because its just jibba jabba..

If my friend or family was killed, i wouldnt bother with the courts, i would track down whoever did it and brutally murder, rape and torture them and their entire family. Thats Justice!

----

if you find me too extreme, i agree with the quote below!

Von Smallhausen said:
And nor should they be culpable in this situation. The officers believed at that moment and acting on information from the command room that Mr de Menezes was an armed by explosive threat. We now now that was not the case.

Someone should be accountable for his death but it certainly should not be the officers on the ground.


Why should he not have a bomb on him ? Police or military personnel do not stop a suspected suicide bomber and ask questions as you simply do not have time and the only recognised way of taking out a suspected suicide bomber is by lethal force and by low energy rounds to the head.

Do not get me wrong, his death is an awful tragedy and a huge mess up by the authorities but the officers who killed him are not at fault.
Click to expand...
 
I don't know why they bother to have the inquest when the verdict is predetermined by the coroner and the jury have little say in it.
 
dirtydog said:
I saw this earlier and I think it is outrageous that the jury is being told they aren't allowed to give certain verdicts! It is pretty obvious they would give a verdict of unlawful killing because that's what it was.
Click to expand...

It isn't though. It is neither murder nor manslaughter by the letter of the law, certainly not on behalf of the cops who pulled the trigger and as such it cannot be an unlawful killing.
 
I agree totally with Von on this one. The officers on the ground couldn't have known, you see hindsight is a beautiful thing. Cressida Dick should be held accountable, but its not her on trial really is it.
 
ThriceNightly said:
indeed it was Cressida Dick who authorised the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes
Click to expand...

Lovely choice of words there, and if it had turned out he had been who they thought he was at that time, and carrying a bomb I assume you would still be calling it murder...


The whole thing has shown up a lot of relatively small ****-ups that added up to a major **** up that led to the death of an innocent man.

Individually from what i've heard there is little evidence any one person caused the death, and certainly not one of the police officers who pulled the trigger (in the sense that they had extremely limited choice if the information they had was that he was a probable suicide bomber at that time).
And before anyone goes all tabloid about the "officers pumped XX rounds into his head, when they didn't need to", a very small amount of research taught me that head shot don't kill all the time, and even when they do it's not always instant (hence multiple shots are needed to guarantee an instant kill which is what is needed for suicide bombers in close proximity to others).

One of the most telling problems is that 15 years after the Kings Cross fire, one of the major recommendations from that, still isn't a reality (emergency services should have reliable comms that work in the underground - something the government hasn't sorted out).



As for the coroners instructions, iirc each of the possible verdicts the court can bring has a very specifc meaning (something that may not be obvious to a layman) and can I believe affect what happens next.
Unlawful killing for example might be taken to mean it was the officers who pulled the trigger that were at fault, whilst an open verdict means that the matter is still ongoing.
If the officers who killed him were following orders, and acting in good faith then the killing cannot be unlawful in that regards (if they honestly believed they had no other choice, but to kill him to prevent larger loss of life, or protect themselves - the same basic reasoning that anyone has when they have a genuine fear for their life and act on it).


As is generally the case, I would trust a coroner, or judge to know enough about the law to give instructions to the jury (something that isn't taken lightly), over ill informed guesswork from tom, dick and harry, or second guessing from reporters whose only legal knowledge might be that it's sometimes worth paying out libel damages if publishing a story brings in more sales...
 
Jurors were also asked to consider which of a number of factors contributed to the Brazilian's death.

Among those were:

* The pressure on police after the 7 July London bombings
* A failure by police to ensure that Mr de Menezes was stopped before he reached the Underground
* The innocent behaviour of Mr de Menezes increasing suspicion

Am I reading that right - he was thought to be guilty because he was acting innocent?
 
fini said:
If the coroner in this is the person I think it is, then anyone would be fullish to disagree with his findings. He is a truly excellent advocate with decades of experience in this area, and one that has reached some of the very upper echelons (he was Treasurer of Lincolns Inn).

I defy anyone to say that they know the law within this area better and thus that he made a wrong decision.
Click to expand...

Anyone can be corrupt....
 
Strife212 said:
I understand that things can go wrong but surely that case is the definition of manslaughter?
Click to expand...

You are confusing the difference between an Inquest and a Trial.

An Inquest is to find out how someone died, where most people here is putting on the criminal hat and judging on what the officer who shot him would be guilty of. There was no one on trial here, it is Coroner's Court where the verdicts are only a handful of possible out come. Unlawful Killing is as strong as you are likely to get in this case and they got it.
 
Last edited:
I don't think anyone from the UK security Forces should face criminal action.

I don't care if he got on a bus, bought a ticket for the tube and sat down ready to go to work. It's regrettable he died but what do you expect on a day like that? Its not 24 with Jack Baurer disarming nukes with a tooth pick or whatever, this is real people are all scared.

The police should be classes as heroes. This case should be stopped and an internal "behind closed doors" investigation should be done to learn from the mistakes.
 
Werewolf said:
And do you have any proof that he might be, other than him doing his job in a manner that does not meet your standards given your extensive knowledge of the law, and the details of the case?
Click to expand...

I never said he was.....

Oxy said:
I don't think anyone from the UK security Forces should face criminal action.

I don't care if he got on a bus, bought a ticket for the tube and sat down ready to go to work. It's regrettable he died but what do you expect on a day like that? Its not 24 with Jack Baurer disarming nukes with a tooth pick or whatever, this is real people are all scared.
Click to expand...

Yeah it's totally ok that he was killed because the police were scared, like you say it's not 24 the police can't do just whatever they like with no repercussions.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom