Yet another avoidable killing by armed police

[Oscar Namechange]

OpenMind;1077359 wrote: I wonder if the coroner has been 'advised'.


Most certainly. The same as Judge's are 'advised' in high profile cases that make the police look stupid.

[Oscar Namechange]

Chookie;1077370 wrote: Here's an excerpt from the official record. I'm not going to comment here, I'll put in my two cents after you've read the excerpt.



My comment is that this bunch of incompetent cretins would make the Keystone Cops look good.


The witness eye reports have consistently contradicted those of the officers.

It is just a whole bloody farce.

The thing i find so disgusting with this, is as i've said before, It would not really have affected any of them to just admit they got it wrong and compensated the family. The public would have had sympathy for the officers in light of the recent Tube bombings. They could have done the decent thing but instead they tried to smear an innocent young man to condone what they had done.

When the story first broke the press, the police jubilation was disgusting. Even at the moment he was dead, bomb experts would have realised that there was nothing in his rucksack and he was not the man they thought he was. They still crowed to the press.

When it was revealed they had got an innocent young man....... the lie's and the cover up's followed. With more lie's and more and more and more.

no wonder his family want to get to the bottom of this.

Anyone with any doubt..... ask yourself this..... What if Charles De Menezes was your son or your brother???

A disgusting example of British lying police.

[spot]

fuzzy butt;1076728 wrote: I don't understand you guys .............how can an Act of parliament be unlawful? these people were given the right under the law to apprehend and to exercise full force. They exercised that right. It's impossible for it to be an unlawful killing.


May I quote the entirety of the relevant law in this country? It may well differ from that in your own.

Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights gives signatory states an obligation to protect the lives of their citizens: “Everyone’s life shall be protected by law. No-one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which the penalty is provided by law. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: (a) in the defence of any person from unlawful violence; (b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent escape of a person lawfully detained; (c) in action lawfully taken for the purposes of quelling a riot”.

There is no overriding law in England or the UK which supervenes this legal obligation.

The key phrase for distinguishing whether a killing by the police is lawful is "no more than absolutely necessary". Applying that to the disgusting series of errors in the killing we're discussing should make it more than apparent that the police officers concerned - and I don't just mean the ones who killed without attempting an arrest though I certainly include them - are not shielded from prosecution for manslaughter here. The only shield they possess is the Establishment.

The coroner's court isn't subject to Acts of Parliament, its verdicts are directed solely by case law and precedent as discussed by the Luce Report. The jury might be directed by a politically-aware coroner but it can still dig its heels in and give an obstinate verdict if it's sufficiently incensed. On that jury I would be.

[Oscar Namechange]

fuzzy butt;1076715 wrote:



I find this a very strange comment coming from one so deeply involved with Vetrans. Think about it. If I was to say that soldiers were just Lawful murderers santioned by the state what would you say to that? Now look at your terrorism laws and you should come up with the same outcome and responce.

These men were santioned by the state under laws of parliament to perform a particular duty. they did that . There was a mistake made and that does not justify unlawful killing because it was not unlawful.








There is no comparrison. during world war, there are different laws to global terrorism. The fact that we are not engaged in a world war, does not give any police officer, the right to shoot an innocent man and then try to say he deserved it when cctv footage showed he did not and was no threat whatsoever to anyone.

Most war veterans were conscripted and did not want to fight. It is an insult to them to try to compare the two.

Even troops in Iraq and Afghaistan who are indeed sanctioned by the state, still can not shoot a totally innocent young man without being answerable and subject to manslaughter charge.

[spot]

fuzzy butt;1077699 wrote: These men were santioned by the state under laws of parliament to perform a particular duty


You keep saying that - what Act are you talking about? I know of nothing that says what you're claiming.

[Oscar Namechange]

It looks like the family has no faith in the British police and system either.

I just hope they never give up.

Jean Charles de Menezes inquest: Family protest as jury sent out to consider verdict - Telegraph

[Oscar Namechange]

The key questions stink in my humble opinion.

De Menezes inquest: the key questions - Telegraph

[Bryn Mawr]

I'I've not had chance to read all of it - I'll finish it later, but haw do 10, 24 and 16 lead to 19 and 20?

Sounds like those on the ground are saying "we didn't identify him" and Dick's office are saying "they told us it was definitely him". CYA time folks!

[Oscar Namechange]

Bryn Mawr;1077799 wrote: I'I've not had chance to read all of it - I'll finish it later, but haw do 10, 24 and 16 lead to 19 and 20?

Sounds like those on the ground are saying "we didn't identify him" and Dick's office are saying "they told us it was definitely him". CYA time folks!


I just love the part in the earlier report that said 'Frank's camera was not on all of the time when he was followed from his home to the Tube station.

How very convienient for 'Frank' and plod.

[OpenMind]

I'm surprised The Sun isn't getting behind this one. Perhaps they've had the word too.

[spot]

OpenMind;1078051 wrote: I'm surprised The Sun isn't getting behind this one. Perhaps they've had the word too.


Brazilians don't buy English tabloids.

[OpenMind]

spot;1078192 wrote: Brazilians don't buy English tabloids.


Probably not. Perhaps it's also considered that the UK public don't give a damn whether justice is done or not. Perhaps they don't, especially not after Baby P. Nothing compares to that kind of injustice. That seemed to make the whole nation numb even to further similar news.

[Oscar Namechange]

OpenMind;1078197 wrote: Probably not. Perhaps it's also considered that the UK public don't give a damn whether justice is done or not. Perhaps they don't, especially not after Baby P. Nothing compares to that kind of injustice. That seemed to make the whole nation numb even to further similar news.


If we all admited it, we know that the truth is, had he have been British and not Brazilian, there would have been a lot more people actually care about him and not make excuses for this pathetic 'Police Service' that we pay for.

Let's just pray the jury are hostile and come back with some kind of justice. With an open verdict, maybe the family will carry on to finally have his killers brought to account. I'm not holding my breath though. :mad:

[Raven]

I dont know about you all, but if I recollect, the only thing the bloke was guilty of was overstaying his visa. Pretty tough penalty to pay if you ask me! And when the incident first happened, they were trying to use this as justification as well. Grasping at straws. They have had time to put together a more stringent defense of their murder of an innocent man.

This man is dead. And the police killed him. For what? Mistaken identity?

Thats no excuse.

Just proves democracy is just an illusion to feed the masses. Keep us quiet, and believing we actually have some control over things. When the reality is we are just copper top batteries that keep the institution running. We can have all of our 'so called' liberties removed whether we are guilty of something or not. We can be put to death and executed in a random manner at any time, whether we are guilty or not, the institution will always win.

[OpenMind]

Raven;1078496 wrote: I dont know about you all, but if I recollect, the only thing the bloke was guilty of was overstaying his visa. Pretty tough penalty to pay if you ask me! And when the incident first happened, they were trying to use this as justification as well. Grasping at straws. They have had time to put together a more stringent defense of their murder of an innocent man.

This man is dead. And the police killed him. For what? Mistaken identity?

Thats no excuse.

Just proves democracy is just an illusion to feed the masses. Keep us quiet, and believing we actually have some control over things. When the reality is we are just copper top batteries that keep the institution running. We can have all of our 'so called' liberties removed whether we are guilty of something or not. We can be put to death and executed in a random manner at any time, whether we are guilty or not, the institution will always win.




Well said. That's how I feel about it too.

[Raven]

I fear the stirrings of anarchy. But as I work for the NHS, I cant let them show. NMC says so.

[OpenMind]

Raven;1078511 wrote: I fear the stirrings of anarchy. But as I work for the NHS, I cant let them show. NMC says so.


I tend to agree. However, in this country at least, the various governments have done well to fragment our society so they are unable to form a revolution. Whether this was done on purpose or whether it was the accident of various policies over the period since WW2, I can't say.

[Bryn Mawr]

Raven;1078496 wrote: I dont know about you all, but if I recollect, the only thing the bloke was guilty of was overstaying his visa. Pretty tough penalty to pay if you ask me! And when the incident first happened, they were trying to use this as justification as well. Grasping at straws. They have had time to put together a more stringent defense of their murder of an innocent man.

This man is dead. And the police killed him. For what? Mistaken identity?

Thats no excuse.

Just proves democracy is just an illusion to feed the masses. Keep us quiet, and believing we actually have some control over things. When the reality is we are just copper top batteries that keep the institution running. We can have all of our 'so called' liberties removed whether we are guilty of something or not. We can be put to death and executed in a random manner at any time, whether we are guilty or not, the institution will always win.


Too true - whilst whitewashes like this go unpunished the government will continue to play the people for fools.

[Oscar Namechange]

Bryn Mawr;1080030 wrote: Too true - whilst whitewashes like this go unpunished the government will continue to play the people for fools.


I think what needs to be determined, is who exactly pays for police wages. they do not get paid by the government and yet the two go hand in hand.

[Bryn Mawr]

The verdict is out and, within the constraints imposed by the Coroner, the Jury has found the Police guilty.

An Open verdict with the answers to the specific questions asked station that the Police lied in court and painting them as incompetent.

Now let's see if we can get a proper trial of those concerned - as if

[spot]

Perhaps I should merge this with the other threads on the inquest?

BBC NEWS | UK | Open verdict at Menezes inquest

So, there it is.

The jury has returned an open verdict at the inquest into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes, whom police mistook for a suicide bomber. It rejected the police account Mr de Menezes was killed lawfully by two officers who shot him seven times at Stockwell Tube in south London.

[Oscar Namechange]

Bryn Mawr;1084412 wrote: The verdict is out and, within the constraints imposed by the Coroner, the Jury has found the Police guilty.

An Open verdict with the answers to the specific questions asked station that the Police lied in court and painting them as incompetent.

Now let's see if we can get a proper trial of those concerned - as if


Oh Bryn, that is truely wonderful news and i'm over-joyed for his family.

Their fight for justice, determination and resolve has paid off.

How brilliant to see lying police brought to Justice :sneaky:

This has made my week.

As you say, maybe now we will get a proper trial of those concerned. :-6:-6:-6:-6:-6

[Oscar Namechange]

spot;1084502 wrote: Perhaps I should merge this with the other threads on the inquest?

BBC NEWS | UK | Open verdict at Menezes inquest

So, there it is.

The jury has returned an open verdict at the inquest into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes, whom police mistook for a suicide bomber. It rejected the police account Mr de Menezes was killed lawfully by two officers who shot him seven times at Stockwell Tube in south London.


Fantastic stuff!!!!!

I am absolutely over-joyed.

As Bryn said on another thread.. maybe now we will see a trial for those who deserve it?

Well done to the family.

What a great feeling when lying police finally have to answer their actions :sneaky:

[OpenMind]

Small recompense for the loss of their son, but it's better than a slap in the face.

[Oscar Namechange]

OpenMind;1084509 wrote: Small recompense for the loss of their son, but it's better than a slap in the face.


Very True but they have justice at last.

[Bryn Mawr]

OpenMind;1084509 wrote: Small recompense for the loss of their son, but it's better than a slap in the face.


They got that last week with the Coroner's ruling - they still see it as a complete whitewash.

[OpenMind]

Bryn Mawr;1084776 wrote: They got that last week with the Coroner's ruling - they still see it as a complete whitewash.


That's understandable. If they decide to go ahead and pursue the murder of their boy, they face a harder battle with this verdict than a verdict of unlawful murder.

[spot]

OpenMind;1084786 wrote: That's understandable. If they decide to go ahead and pursue the murder of their boy, they face a harder battle with this verdict than a verdict of unlawful murder.


I think you may be wrong. If the coroner had left all options open I suspect the jury would still have given an open verdict. His refusing to allow unlawful killing gives the family a chance for a judicial review which is quite capable of saying the option should have been left available, given the damning statements the questions received from the jurors.

[OpenMind]

spot;1084839 wrote: I think you may be wrong. If the coroner had left all options open I suspect the jury would still have given an open verdict. His refusing to allow unlawful killing gives the family a chance for a judicial review which is quite capable of saying the option should have been left available, given the damning statements the questions received from the jurors.


I have to confess that I haven't seen the statements. I caught bits and pieces of it on Radio 2 news but I've not read any news or had the TV on today (rarely have the TV on at all).

[spot]

OpenMind;1084848 wrote: I have to confess that I haven't seen the statements. I caught bits and pieces of it on Radio 2 news but I've not read any news or had the TV on today (rarely have the TV on at all).


"Did firearms officer C12 shout armed police?" ANSWER: NO

"Did Mr de Menezes stand up from his seat before he was grabbed in a bear hug by officer Ivor?" ANSWER: YES

"Did Mr de Menezes move towards C12 before he was grabbed in a bear hug by Ivor?" ANSWER: NO

"The pressure on police after the suicide attacks in July 2005." ANSWER: CANNOT DECIDE

"A failure to obtain and provide better photographic images of failed bomber Hussain Osman to surveillance officers." ANSWER: YES

"The general difficulty in providing identification of the man under surveillance in the time available." ANSWER: NO

"The fact that the views of the surveillance officers regarding identification were not accurately communicated to the command team and firearms officers. ANSWER: YES

"A failure by police to ensure that Mr de Menezes was stopped before he reached public transport." ANSWER: YES

"The innocent behaviour of Mr de Menezes increasing suspicion." ANSWER: NO

"The fact that the position of the cars containing the firearms officers was not accurately known by the command team as firearms teams were approaching Stockwell Tube." ANSWER: YES

"Shortcomings in the communications system between various police teams on the ground." ANSWER: YES

"Failure to conclude at the time that surveillance officers could have been used to carry out the stop on Mr de Menezes at Stockwell." ANSWER: YES

BBC NEWS | UK | Menezes jury's verdict explained

That sort of thing.

[OpenMind]

Thanks, Spot.

It is easy to judge in hindsight. The only thing I can state positively here is that, with a poorly set out operation, the wrong man was killed. Bear in mind that this is just days after the carnage caused by the suicide bombers.

The police were already under pressure to catch the target. That they acted on poor information and out of fear for their own lives (let alone the public's) is an indication of how ill-prepared they were. Hardly surprising for an institution that has become bogged down with bureaucratical processes. The photograph that would have prevented the death of an innocent person was not in the hands of the officers responsible for apprehending a suspect and who, to them, was a potential suicide bomber.

As much as we are readily critical of the way this was handled, place yourself in their shoes and imagine how it must feel thinking that you may be blown to smithereens at any moment. This, while the twin towers are also still fresh in everyone's minds. What would you do?

The real people responsible for the murder of this innocent man are those who should have been in charge of the oprations. I hope the police have got their house in order now.

This still does not exempt them from their attempt to pervert justice before the coroner and I do not understand why, when it has been shown that they were doing this, that they are not to be tried - unless I've missed something here.

[spot]

What happened afterwards bothers me, though it's nothing to do with whether charges will ever be brought for gross negligence manslaughter, misconduct in a public office and attempting to pervert the course of justice.

The things that bother me are the way the police colluded before making their written statements and the way the IPCC was kept out of the frame until things like the camera recording from inside the tube train - if it ever existed - had been removed.

Excuse me if I copy a lump of material into the thread at this point, from the eventual IPCC report. You'll see i've re-ordered the paragraphs to bring bits into conjunction.

8.27 Witness XP is a Contracts Manager. His duties include the download and removal of recorded information from Northern line trains. An underground train has six cars. They are split into two units of three. The car in the middle of each unit is called the trailer car. On each trailer car there is a digital video recording system. The system records cameras that are located on each unit of the train. Each car has two cameras. The digital video recording system includes a removable hard drive device which is enclosed in a steel caddy. It is locked and the key is kept in a key safe.

8.28 Witness XP states that that the hard drives were missing from the train entered by Mr DE MENEZES because they had been removed after the 7/7 bombings. He further states that he has checked the documentation for the two units and there is no record of any replacement. Some trains on the Northern line were fitted with new hard drives after 7/7.

17.20 Following the shooting of Jean Charles DE MENEZES, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police wrote to Sir John GIEVE, Permanent Secretary, at the Home Office informing him that he had given a direction that the IPCC would not be given access to the scene of the shooting and the matter would not be referred to by the IPCC. Indeed at 10:55hrs, on 22 July 2005, 49 minutes after the fatal shooting, Detective Superintendent ZP of the Directorate of Professional Standards recorded in his policy file the direct order from the Commissioner was that the IPCC was to be excluded.

17.21 Chief Inspector ZT also recorded in his decision log at 10:48hrs only 42 minutes after the shooting that the IPCC were to be excluded. He states that he was told that this was on the authority of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and the Prime Minister.

17.22 The pressures under which the Metropolitan Police were operating following the events of 7 July and 21 July are self-evident. However, the fact that the independent body established by an Act of Parliament to investigate complaints and serious incidents involving the police, and which has independently investigated every fatal police shooting since 1 April 2004 was now to be excluded from the scene, is a major concern for an independent investigation, and should never occur again.

17.23 The fact that there was such concern over the problems with the CCTV tapes at STOCKWELL and the fact that the hard drives on the train were missing highlights the problem. This issue could have been resolved a lot earlier had they been under the control of the IPCC.

17.24 The London and South East Regional offices are within 20 minutes driving time of STOCKWELL. While the organisation does not have all the resources of the DPS, a senior investigator could have been despatched to take command and control of the scene. It is fully recognised that the Anti Terrorist Branch may well have had primacy of the scene, but a verbal memorandum of understanding concerning priorities could have been agreed at the time, as it would have been between SO13 and the DPS.







18.3 The officers were interviewed at 90 HIGH HOLBORN, the regional offices of the IPCC.

18.4 Commander Cressida DICK who was represented by Mr John HARDING from Kingsley Napley Solicitors was interviewed in respect of offences of gross negligent manslaughter and misconduct in a public office.

18.5 Detective Chief Inspector C was represented by Mr Charles LONG from Edward Hays Solicitors. He was interviewed for the same offences as Commander DICK.

18.6 Trojans 80 and 84 were represented by Mr Scott INGRAM from Russell Jones and Walker and were also interviewed for the same offences as Commander DICK.

18.7 These four officers were interviewed on the basis of their command and control roles, Trojan 80 was the tactical adviser to Commander DICK, and Trojan 84 was Tactical adviser to DCI C.

18.8 Charlie 2 and 12 were both interviewed for the offences of murder, gross negligence manslaughter and misconduct in the public office and attempting to pervert the course of justice. They were represented by Mr Scott INGRAM of Russell Jones and Walker. These two officers were the principal officers who fatally shot Jean Charles DE MENEZES. The two officers were also interviewed in respect of the offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice in respect of comments recorded in their statements that the words “armed police” were uttered before Mr DE MENEZES was shot.

18.9 Charlie 5, ’Terry’ and Delta 9 are all officers from CO19 and they are represented by Mr Scott INGRAM from Russell Jones and Walker. They were interviewed for the offences of attempting to pervert the course of justice in respect of allegedly hearing the words “armed police” being shouted prior to the fatal shooting.

18.10 ’Geoff’, ‘Ivor’ and ‘Ken’ are all members of the Special Branch Surveillance Team They are represented by Mr Colin REYNOLDS from Reynolds DAWSONS Solicitors. They were also present at the underground train with Charlie 2, 5, 12, ’Terry’ and Delta 9 when the words “armed police” were alleged to have been shouted.

17.15 Concern has been expressed both by parties in this investigation and in other police shootings about the way officers make their statements following such a fatality. In relation to the fatal shooting of Jean Charles DE-MENEZES the incident occurred at 10:06hrs on Friday 22 July 2005. The officers involved then returned to LEMAN STREET Police Station where they had their welfare considered. This included a medical examination and access to legal representation. As a result of legal advice, no notes or statements were made by the two principal officers until the following day.

17.16 On 23 July 2005 the officers returned to duty and at approximately 11:50hrs the two principal officers were advised that the man they had fatally wounded was not part of the SO13 Anti-Terrorist investigation. At approximately 14:00hrs on 23 July some 28 hours after the incident the officers commenced writing their statements in a briefing room at LEMAN STREET.

17.17 Section 2.56 – 2.62 of the ACPO Manual of Guidance on Police Use of Firearms covers the issue of making notes. Paragraph 2.57 states “Initial notes (eg pocket notebook, incident log page for each officer, or a pro forma) should be made as soon as practicable, subject to any individual legal advice received to the contrary”. It is known that at 17:30hrs on Friday 22 July 2005, the two principal officers, on legal advice, were informed not to make any initial notes. It is also apparent from the statement of Police Constable ZS that both officers were in a distressed state following the incident.

17.18 Paragraph 2.62 State ‘Formal statements should not normally be required immediately but, providing initial notes are made, can be left until witnesses (including officers) have overcome any initial shock of the incident and are able to better recollect their experiences at the time’.

17.19 In this incident no initial notes were obtained. It is worthy of comment that eight officers have been interviewed under caution in relation to alleged comments about the terms ‘armed police’ being used prior to Mr DE MENEZES being killed. The fact that the officers made their notes together will attract comment. It is understood that it is general practice that officers are to be treated as witnesses of truth unless and until they are suspected of criminal offences. It follows that they are permitted to make their notes together.

[OpenMind]

Collusion from the bottom right up to the Commissioner!

[Bryn Mawr]

OpenMind;1084894 wrote: Thanks, Spot.

It is easy to judge in hindsight. The only thing I can state positively here is that, with a poorly set out operation, the wrong man was killed. Bear in mind that this is just days after the carnage caused by the suicide bombers.

The police were already under pressure to catch the target. That they acted on poor information and out of fear for their own lives (let alone the public's) is an indication of how ill-prepared they were. Hardly surprising for an institution that has become bogged down with bureaucratical processes. The photograph that would have prevented the death of an innocent person was not in the hands of the officers responsible for apprehending a suspect and who, to them, was a potential suicide bomber.

As much as we are readily critical of the way this was handled, place yourself in their shoes and imagine how it must feel thinking that you may be blown to smithereens at any moment. This, while the twin towers are also still fresh in everyone's minds. What would you do?

The real people responsible for the murder of this innocent man are those who should have been in charge of the oprations. I hope the police have got their house in order now.

This still does not exempt them from their attempt to pervert justice before the coroner and I do not understand why, when it has been shown that they were doing this, that they are not to be tried - unless I've missed something here.


That the wrong man was killed is regrettable - that the Police lied through their back teeth to cover it up is unforgivable.

Had they held their hands up and said we boobed then OK, review procedures, maybe demote the incompetent and move on.

That they tried to prove themselves innocent brings into question every other action they've taken.

[Oscar Namechange]

De Menezes jury damns police 'cover-up': Officers' claims of shouting warning before gunning down innocent Brazilian rejected | Mail Online

[spot]

There's such a shoddy lack of accountability in all of this.No police officers will be prosecuted over the death of Jean Charles de Menezes, Crown prosecutors Service say. It follows a review of new evidence which came to light at his inquest. Mr de Menezes, 27, was shot dead by police at Stockwell Tube station in south London after he was mistaken for one of the failed 21 July 2005 bombers.

A spokeswoman for the Justice 4 Jean campaign said she was "absolutely furious" but the family is dropping its legal challenges to the inquest.

In December, an inquest jury returned an open verdict - rejecting the police view that he was killed lawfully. Stephen O'Doherty, the lawyer who led the CPS review, said: "I have now concluded that there is insufficient evidence that any offence was committed by any individual officers in relation to the tragic death of Mr de Menezes."

BBC NEWS | UK | Family anger over Menezes review



At the very least the paid killers should be employed elsewhere in an industry that has no use for guns.

At the very least the designers of the inevitable-kill process should be in jail.

[Oscar Namechange]

spot;1133791 wrote: There's such a shoddy lack of accountability in all of this.No police officers will be prosecuted over the death of Jean Charles de Menezes, Crown prosecutors Service say. It follows a review of new evidence which came to light at his inquest. Mr de Menezes, 27, was shot dead by police at Stockwell Tube station in south London after he was mistaken for one of the failed 21 July 2005 bombers.

A spokeswoman for the Justice 4 Jean campaign said she was "absolutely furious" but the family is dropping its legal challenges to the inquest.

In December, an inquest jury returned an open verdict - rejecting the police view that he was killed lawfully. Stephen O'Doherty, the lawyer who led the CPS review, said: "I have now concluded that there is insufficient evidence that any offence was committed by any individual officers in relation to the tragic death of Mr de Menezes."

BBC NEWS | UK | Family anger over Menezes review



At the very least the paid killers should be employed elsewhere in an industry that has no use for guns.

At the very least the designers of the inevitable-kill process should be in jail.


'Stephen O'Doherty, the lawyer who led the CPS review, said: "I have now concluded that there is insufficient evidence that any offence was committed by any individual officers in relation to the tragic death of Mr de Menezes." '

There is an innocent young Brazilian man lying dead......... How does he reach this conclusion given the evidence of the police cover-up?

[spot]

The designers of shoot-to-kill policing are definitely guilty.

[Oscar Namechange]

spot;1134099 wrote: The designers of shoot-to-kill policing are definitely guilty.


Exactly....... Would secondry manslaughter be applicable for the one who gave the order?

[spot]

oscar;1134105 wrote: Exactly....... Would secondry manslaughter be applicable for the one who gave the order?


I don't really mind. What I mind is that the bastards haven't been fired and publicly disgraced.

[Barman]

Did you watch the "Stockwell" drama a few weeks ago. Shocking if true. The ineptitude of the Police force in this country is very worrying. Either way an innocent young man was murdered by an incompetent bunch of idiots to put it politely.

[Oscar Namechange]

spot;1134106 wrote: I don't really mind. What I mind is that the bastards haven't been fired and publicly disgraced.


As ever, it seems our police however senior they are, choose not to. To do so would be an admission that they get it wrong and we certainly don't want the public thinking that do we?

[spot]

oscar;1134113 wrote: As ever, it seems our police however senior they are, choose not to. To do so would be an admission that they get it wrong and we certainly don't want the public thinking that do we?


I'd happily see them privatized and facing competition. Bloody incompetent self-serving power merchants from top to bottom, the whole parcel.

[Oscar Namechange]

spot;1134130 wrote: I'd happily see them privatized and facing competition. Bloody incompetent self-serving power merchants from top to bottom, the whole parcel.


One thing that i have noticed change about the police since i was a teenager, is the arrogance of plods now. Maybe i look at the past with rose-tinted specs but todays plod just seems so damn arrogant. Not just the seniors but even the PCSO's and PC's.

[spot]

oscar;1134211 wrote: One thing that i have noticed change about the police since i was a teenager, is the arrogance of plods now. Maybe i look at the past with rose-tinted specs but todays plod just seems so damn arrogant. Not just the seniors but even the PCSO's and PC's.


I'd sooner talk with an oozing leper so I wouldn't know.

[Oscar Namechange]

spot;1134220 wrote: I'd sooner talk with an oozing leper so I wouldn't know. :wah::wah::wah:

[Daniyal]

oscar;1134058 wrote: 'Stephen O'Doherty, the lawyer who led the CPS review, said: "I have now concluded that there is insufficient evidence that any offence was committed by any individual officers in relation to the tragic death of Mr de Menezes." '

There is an innocent young Brazilian man lying dead......... How does he reach this conclusion given the evidence of the police cover-up?


Dig That

Nefer Mensher

[Daniyal]

Associated Press

Posted: 02/01/2009 08:07:36 PM PST

Updated: 02/02/2009 06:32:53 AM PST

SAN FRANCISCO — The lawyer for a BART officer who struck an unarmed man who was later killed by another officer said his client was provoked into using force.

BART police Officer Tony Pirone was identified as hitting Oscar Grant III in the head shortly before Grant was fatally shot early Jan. 1. His attorney, Bill Rapoport, said Grant provoked Pirone's blow by trying to knee Pirone at least twice.

Rapoport said he does not think his client will be charged. The attorney hired analysts to break down cell-phone video showing Pirone striking Grant. He determined that Pirone used "reasonable force" by using his forearm — not fist — when striking Grant.

"Mr. Pirone has nothing to hide because he didn't do anything wrong. He acted properly within procedure during an out-of-control situation with out-of-control people," Rapoport said Saturday.

John Burris, the attorney for Grant's family, said Rapoport's assertion was "bogus," and said Pirone's unprovoked actions led to Grant's killing.

Last week, BART announced that it is turning over its internal investigation of the incidents to an independent third party.

Meanwhile, former BART Officer Johannes Mehserle remains in jail on $3 million bail after pleading not guilty to the 22-year-old Grant's killing. The shooting — fueled by cell-phone video of the incident — has caused community outrage leading to protests and arrests.

BART officer for four years, is now on paid leave. Pirone's name surfaced last week after another cell-phone video surfaced, showing an officer hitting Grant as he stood against a wall on the Fruitvale station platform in Oakland.

Rapoport said Pirone was the first officer at the station that night after 911 reports of a fight on a BART train. Pirone stopped Grant and four others who matched a police dispatcher's description. Pirone ordered the group to the wall where his partner, Officer Marysol Domenici, was waiting, Rapoport said.

Grant and another man tried to re-board the train, causing Pirone to point his stun gun at Grant through an open train door, Rapoport said. Pirone escorted Grant to the wall and returned to the train, pulling a fifth man out, Rapoport said.

Pirone was handcuffing that fifth man, Rapoport said, when he heard shouting near his partner and saw three men, including Grant, approach her as she tried to calm them down. That's when Pirone hit Grant.

"Oscar Grant was the aggressor and that aggression needed to be stopped and with the least amount of force," Rapoport said. "My client stopped Grant from striking Marysol and continuing to strike him."

Other officers, including Mehserle, soon arrived. Pirone told them that Grant and another man were under arrest for resisting and obstructing an officer, Rapoport said. The lawyer added that Grant was still confrontational and stood up when Pirone pulled him down.

Moments later, Mehserle fatally shot Grant. According to Mehserle's attorney, Pirone stated that Mehserle said "I'm going to tase him, I'm going to tase him," before firing his gun.

Mehserle's attorney has argued in court that his client thought he was using his stun gun, not his firearm.

Grant family attorney Burris, who has filed a $25 million claim against BART, said Sunday that Pirone also should be prosecuted.

"Pirone overreacted. It was an unprovoked attack," Burris said. "He should be prosecuted for his over-aggressiveness by hitting Mr. Grant and holding him down, which led to the shooting. Verbal statements by Mr. Grant or anyone else doesn't justify the use of physical force."





Inside BayArea.com

[gmc]

spot;1134130 wrote: I'd happily see them privatized and facing competition. Bloody incompetent self-serving power merchants from top to bottom, the whole parcel.


Private police? Never, never, never. We don't have private armies either and for good reason.

[spot]

gmc;1137595 wrote: Private police? Never, never, never. We don't have private armies either and for good reason.


In their current guise the forces and officers are impossible to bring to justice. Privatized their shareholders might at least be made to suffer financially when some passer-by is killed through incompetence.