bluemonday Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 Clicky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 The jury of 10 were asked 12 specific questions about whether or not a series of events on 22 July 2005 contributed to the 27-year-old's death. A majority of the jury said that they did not believe officers had shouted "armed police" before opening fire. They said said they believed Mr Menezes had stood up from his seat before being shot. However they did not believe he had moved towards the first officer to open fire. In simple terms, they belive the police were lying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted December 12, 2008 Author Share Posted December 12, 2008 And the open verdict the jury returned shows that. After all they were told that they would not be permitted to return 'unlawful killing' This seemed to be the only option that allowed them to show what they felt. Unsavoury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 How can a jury be told what they can or can not return? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bombay Bad Boy Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 They also rejected that Mr de Menezes' innocent behaviour had increased suspicions WTF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilDDog Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 What this boils down to is all of the passengers were telling lies and the police were telling the truth. The good old British justice system eh? Totally out of order Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 Government cover up, police cover up, and now a judicial cover up (restricted verdict). Not one copper has been prosecuted for killing anyone in the last 30 odd fatal shootings, and more than this one have been dodgy. I think the jury made it obvious what they thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 to be honest the cops should be let away with no charge even if thay were wrong, thay took a call at the time it was the wrong one, somebody lost there life over it, but what if he had been what thay thought, the cops would be knighted for it, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molly Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 I try and put myself in the position of the armed police and imagine how i would feel if i had a suspect in sight, remember its great with hindsight knowing now that he obviously wasn't a risk, no matter how well trained you were if you genuinely thought this guy was going to blow himself up taking oneself with you how would you react? If he was a suicide bomber, 'shouting stop armed police' would be just the the cue he would have needed to blow himself and others. Police are human after all, not that that is any comfort to the guy who was shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 I try and put myself in the position of the armed police and imagine how i would feel if i had a suspect in sight, remember its great with hindsight knowing now that he obviously wasn't a risk, no matter how well trained you were if you genuinely thought this guy was going to blow himself up taking oneself with you how would you react? If he was a suicide bomber, 'shouting stop armed police' would be just the the cue he would have needed to blow himself and others. Police are human after all, not that that is any comfort to the guy who was shot. If, if, if - maybe - but it was pretty clear this was a f**k up of the first order if you read the detail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilDDog Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 I try and put myself in the position of the armed police and imagine how i would feel if i had a suspect in sight, remember its great with hindsight knowing now that he obviously wasn't a risk, no matter how well trained you were if you genuinely thought this guy was going to blow himself up taking oneself with you how would you react? If he was a suicide bomber, 'shouting stop armed police' would be just the the cue he would have needed to blow himself and others. Police are human after all, not that that is any comfort to the guy who was shot. I agree with what you and gazza are saying but they should just say that and say they totally got it wrong and shot an innocent guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 I try and put myself in the position of the armed police and imagine how i would feel if i had a suspect in sight, remember its great with hindsight knowing now that he obviously wasn't a risk, no matter how well trained you were if you genuinely thought this guy was going to blow himself up taking oneself with you how would you react? If he was a suicide bomber, 'shouting stop armed police' would be just the the cue he would have needed to blow himself and others. Police are human after all, not that that is any comfort to the guy who was shot. I agree with what you and gazza are saying but they should just say that and say they totally got it wrong and shot an innocent guy. the thing is if thay did do that, then you have ppl wanting there guts for gartters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilDDog Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 the thing is if thay did do that, then you have ppl wanting there guts for gartters But at the end of the day that's exactly what's going to happen anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 the thing is if thay did do that, then you have ppl wanting there guts for gartters But at the end of the day that's exactly what's going to happen anyway. and thats what i think is wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 If, if, if - maybe - but it was pretty clear this was a f**k up of the first order if you read the detail. Dear me, just how many times do you lot need to be told? You can "what if" just about anything just about forever - proves nothing. There was never a specific intent to kill Jean Charles de Menezes so murder is not an option. The cops were acting with the best of intentions but importantly within the law so unlawful killing is not an option. Whether they shouted "armed police" or not is completely meaningless as they were going to shoot him anyway as the Israeli experience has shown it's the only way to stop a suicide bomber and save the lives of the innocents. It's extremely regrettable but as these processes are run by people and as people make mistakes it's not only inevitable but it almost certainly will happen again. Welcome to Planet Earth - I live here, do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.