Jean Charles de Menezes verdict

I'm not sure in which country you live, EighteenDelta, but here in the U.S. it's pretty easy to get a gun, either legally or illegally. Yet instances described in the OP are pretty routine here. So easy availability of guns doesn't necessarily result in either a free society or police who are aware of their duties to the citizenry.In fact, the biggest political supporters of low levels of gun control also tend (in general) to be "law and order" types who support more authoritarian government and who have a reflex to support the police and military in all cases whatsoever. There are exceptions (like myself), but that is the general trend here. When I notice who in the U.K. also supports gun ownership, I tend to see the same trends there, too.So I never understood the reasoning of those who advocate gun ownership as a means of maintaining a free society. Well, actually, I do understand the reasoning -- it's good reasoning that, like Medievel Scholaticism, isn't checked against real-life facts.

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

You realize that this is the same reasoning that got us into the war in Iraq?

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

Have we conversed before?

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

At the risk of taking the analogy far beyond its utilities to make a specific point, that is exactly what the Bush administration did: they claimed that Iraq and Al Qaeda was in cahoots, and that sleeper cells existed in the U.S. and other countries, and, in fact, Iraq did invade its neighbors and posed a constant threat to other nations.At least, though, the Bush administration claimed that Iraq posed an imminent danger that needed to be dealt with immediately. CK claimed that the trespasser in question was running away -- he therefore didn't pose an immediate threat, and it is legitimate to question whether the use of force was necessary. In response, it was claimed there was some vague possibility that the trespasser would pose a threat in the future. It is legitimate to question whether that is sufficient to justify the use of deadly force -- that was the point I was trying to raise. Sorry that it wasn't clear.CK claimed the shooter was a psycho. That wasn't disputed in the response. But it does seem warranted to question whether a psycho's claim of being threatened really excuses his use of violence; in fact, psycho's tend to be considered to be a danger to society precisely because they cannot be counted on to refrain from the use of inappropriate violence.Edited by Chiroptera, : Added subtitle.

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

Perhaps. But that isn't clear to me after reading and rereading your post, so let me spell it out just to make sure.- I didn't say that, and, personally, I don't think that a rational person reading my post would come to that conclusion as to what my point was. Even if I wasn't clear (and I accept responsibility if I wasn't), I think that a rational person would have understood what I meant. Maybe I'm wrong, and someone more dispassionate can advise me otherwise.But let me spell it out. The problem with both the mentally ill and people at the extreme edge of what we would consider the "normal" range of behavior is that they do not accurately perceive what constitutes a reasonable threat. Many people commit acts of violence because the perceived a threat in a situation that a normal, reasonable person would not see a threat. I am not aware of any political ideology or social theory that advocates the use of violence whenever anyone anywhere in any situation simply claims she felt threatened. Rather, in all cases I am aware of, it is considered a part of civilized society to make sure that the threat was real or at least the person had a reasonable belief that she was under threat. "Psychos", that is, people who are mentally ill or at the very limits of what we consider normal behavior, are, by definition, either unable to accurately judge a real-life situation correctly or are impulsive or compulsive in their behavior. Therefore, it is legitimate that a person whose behavior is known to be abberant comes under extra scrutiny when she commits an act of violence and then claims it was in self-defence.- But is this a reasonable assumption? How many victims of violent crime in the U.K. became a victim because they allowed a perpetrator to run away, allowing him to maneuver for another attack? In fact, as far as I know, when faced with a gun, potential criminals tend to run away and don't press their attack. That is precisely one of the arguments that gun advocates use here in the U.S.From what I understand, the U.K. judicial system is very similar to that in the U.S., so I assume that this particular person was convicted by a jury of his peers who actually looked at the evidence before them and came to their conclusions as to whether this person had a legitimate reason to assume a threat by the person running away. Now, juries aren't always correct, but I assume that the criminal justice system in the U.K. is open like it is here in the U.S., so you can get access to the actual court records and provide the facts of the case that would allow one to conclude that this person really did have a reasonable belief that he was under threat.- No, his use of violence should not be excused simply because there were intruders in his own home. I am still trying to understand how shooting a person in the back as he is running away can be excused under any circumstances. And, since it appears to be the law of your country, passed by a democratically elected Parliament, I'm guessing that these limits on the use of deadly force more or less reflects the views of the majority of your fellow citizens. Of course, Parliaments don't always reflect the majority opinion (and sometimes for good reason!), and sometimes the majority can be considered wrong, but I don't think that you are doing a very good job why we should just accept your opinion as to what is right and what is wrong.Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

This is what I meant in my previous post.

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

No, you are talking about the use of violence whenever someone feels threatened. The person was running away, therefore his death was not in defense of anyone's health or property. You keep imagining some scenario where the guy is going to go some place where he's hypothetically stashed a theoretical weapon so he can come back and whack a guy who scared him away with a gun. You are advocating the use of violence because someone felt threatened.- We've been around this. We are not talking about simply someone breaking into someone else's house. We are talking about shooting someone in the back when they are running away, and therefore after they've ceased to be a threat.- Huh? I've already explained that I'm not questioning anyone's right to anything. Are you having trouble comprehending what I'm saying? Is the American spelling confusing you?- Huh? What does this have to do with this situation? We're talking about a case where the guy did have a gun. How is the prevalence of gun ownership an issue here? So some people don't see a broken bottle as a credible deterrent -- what does that have to do with whether someone who actually does have a gun should be allowed to shoot someone in the back?- And what's the problem in this case? I'm assuming that British law does allow the use of violence and the use of deadly force when someone has a legitimate reason to feel that her safety is in danger. Am I wrong in this? I'm assuming that British law does hold people criminally liable in cases where the use of force was inappropriate in the particular situation. Am I wrong about this? And so the jury made a decision as to whether, according to the law, the use of deadly force in this instance was appropriate. Am I wrong? Unless there are facts that I haven't yet been told, I don't see where the law and justice have parted in this case -- except under some idea of justice that there are situations that unarmed people fleeing should be shot in the back.- I don't know, you should bring that up with someone who holds that position. In the meantime, if you are going to hold an imaginary conversation with yourself you should click the "Gen Reply" button at the very bottom of the page. Use the "Reply" button at the bottom of my post when you are going to address the actual points that I've actually made.- He didn't have to assume anything. The guy was running away. That pretty much establishes the fact that there was no immediate threat to his safety. I mean, the whole conversation seems to be revolving around whether a person who is running away poses a credible threat. Why do you keep leaving out this this piece of the situation?- Because if we allow fantasy scenarios as an excuse to whack people, then there would be no murder charges since every killing would be claimed to be the result of some fantasy threat.

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

Sure. Someone running away from you is not a threat. In fact, they are the opposite of a threat. Whether or not they are in your home is immaterial -- the space-time geometry in your home is the same as the space-time geometry outside of your home. So, when you see someone's back in your home, it means exactly the same thing when you see someones back outside of your home -- it means that they are not facing you. Someone running in your home with their back to you means exactly the same thing as someone running outside your home with their back to you -- it means that the distance between them and you is getting larger. Putting this together, it means that they are moving away from you and therefore they are not presenting an immediate threat. So shooting them in the back is a gratuitous killing -- it is unnecessary in terms of self-defense. Since the person is running away, no defense it necessary.Are things a little clearer now? To be honest, I have no idea why you are having trouble with this.- Did you read the link that Modulous provided? It is quite interesting. I'll requote the relevant part:

quote:

---

5. In judging whether the defendant had only used reasonable force, the jury has to take into account all the circumstances, including the situation as the defendant honestly believes it to be at the time, when he was defending himself. It does not matter if the defendant was mistaken in his belief as long as his belief was genuine.

​

6. Accordingly, the jury could only convict Mr Martin if either they did not believe his evidence that he was acting in self-defence or they thought that Mr Martin had used an unreasonable amount of force. These were issues which were ideally suited to a decision of a jury.

​

7. As to the first issue, what Mr Martin believed, the jury heard his evidence and they could only reject that evidence, if they were satisfied it was untrue. As to the second issue, as to what is a reasonable amount of force, obviously opinions can differ. It cannot be left to a defendant to decide what force it is reasonable to use because this would mean that even if a defendant used disproportionate force but he believed he was acting reasonably he would not be guilty of any offence. It is for this reason that it was for the jury, as the representative of the public, to decide the amount of force which it would be reasonable and the amount of force which it would be unreasonable to use in the circumstances in which they found that Mr Martin believed himself to be in. It is only if the jury are sure that the amount of force which was used was unreasonable that they are entitled to find a defendant guilty if he was acting in self-defence.

---

So the jury disagrees with you. The jury is allowed to acquit (that means to find "not guilty") if the person reasonably considers himself to be in danger. The jury decided that the defendent did not really believe himself to be in enough danger to warrant the amount of force that he used, and, in fact, the jury decided that the amount of force was unreasonable for the circumstances, taking into account what the defendent actually believed to be his circumstances.In other words, the jury did not believe that Martin really felt himself to be in danger, and so the shooting was unnecessary for his defense.Edited by Chiroptera, : fix linkEdited by Chiroptera, : try again

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

And, similarly, Fearon and Barras were both victims of a crime and criminals at the same time. They were burglars, but at the same time they became victims of what appears to be a malicious shooting.

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

It depends. If they were actually in the process of crawling through the window, then I would feel it would be unreasonable to shoot directly at them (if I had a gun) and would give some sort of warning that they had been discovered.If they were raising what appeared to be a weapon, then it is certainly reasonable to use deadly force.If they were in the living room and either were wheeling around quickly or rushing me, then it would be reasonable to use deadly force.If they were running away, then it would not be reasonable to use deadly force.- Yes, and you are claiming that this is because in a just and fair society, someone who feels threatened is justified in using deadly force to protect herself.In this case, it appears that the facts indicate that Martin did not feel sufficiently threatened to warrant the use of deadly force.So, by this criterion, it is proper that Martin be prosecuted.- You'll have to bring that up with your authorities. We have enough problems in this country with our own rogue cops.

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

Sure. I've fired a gun before. I can squeeze a trigger a lot faster than someone can raise their arm.And have you ever fired a gun before? My aim standing up is a lot better than some clown halfway in a window.I have the drop on them, and I have control. It would be unreasonable for me to shoot without warning at someone halfway in my window.You on the other hand, scared shitless like you claim to be, and with an exaggerated idea of what petty thugs are capable of, could probably make a case that you were applying reasonable force in that situation. I dunno. That would be for the jury to decide.- Okay. Now you're adding details. But this is precisely my point: reasonable fear for one's safety depends on the situation, the details of the situation.By the way, this is similar to what Martin seems to have claimed happened. However, the jury, on examining the facts of the case, decided that he wasn't telling the truth.- Actually, I have.Personal information deleted: not relevant to the discussion.Edited by Chiroptera, : typoEdited by Chiroptera, : Deleted irrelevant personal information.

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

There's a couple of things that need to be said concerning this topic.You seem to be claiming that a person breaking into one's home automatically gives the right of the home owner to shoot him. You seem to claim that this is because a person breaking into someone's home gives the home owner a reason to fear for her safety.However, in most jurisdictions, for lethal force to be considered legitimate, the person defending herself needs to actually be afraid for her safety -- it is not sufficient that one can understand why someone could be afraid for her safety, she needs to be actually afraid. Now, someone breaking into someone's house does not automatically mean that the home owner is afraid -- according to the facts examined by a jury, the Martin case is a particular situation where the homeowner did not actually fear for his safety as he shot the intruders.Then you seem to be claiming that because the intruders were, in fact, burglars, there should have been no investigation of the shooting -- it should have been assumed that Martin was shooting in defense of his life and safety. Except this makes no sense -- according to the evidence, examined by a jury with the defense attempting to dispute them, it has been determined that this would have been a wrong assumption. The Martin case shows that we cannot assume that in any given case where an intruder is shot it is because the home owner feared for her safety.So this whole discussion as to whether or not a person has reason to fear for her safety (to the point of legitimizing lethal force) just because an intruder is in the house has been irrelevant to the discussion. The discussion has been about the Martin case, and it has been established that Martin did not have sufficient fear for his life to warrant the use of lethal force.Personally, and correct me if I am wrong, I think what you really want to say is that a person should simply have the right to shoot an intruder in her home under any (or at least most) circumstances. And that would be fine -- it is a view point I disagree with, but it is certainly more respectable in that it wouldn't involve making up fantasy scenarios -- it becomes a discussion about ethics, rights, and what kind of society we want to live in.Unfortunately, though, you seem to want to discuss the Martin case as a comparison to the Menezes incident, and for that you need to discuss which situations claims for the fears of one's safety should justify lethal force. However, in this case, you seem to be comparing apples with oranges, and are trying to force the orange to be an apple.Personally, I think that, even considering the question of justification of lethal force, the two incidents are too different to be directly comparable. They are each either just or unjust based on their own individual merits, and whatever conclusions we reach about one case will have little or no relevance to the conclusions we reach about the other case.In fact, you even admitted as such. You have admitted that you feel that Martin was, pretty much automatically, justified in his use of lethal force and don't feel there should have been an investigation. And you seem to feel that there should have been a proper investigation in the Menezes shooting, and that the officers involved should have been punished for their use of lethal force despite their claims that they were acting out of a sincere fear for their safety and the safety of others. So you, yourself, are saying that the two cases are not comparable, and the conclusions you reached about one have little relevance to the conclusions you reached about the other.

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

So the essence of the case doesn't have anything to do with whether Martin felt shooting the intruders was necessary to protect his life? That it doesn't matter that Martin's reason for shooting was to teach a lesson to the bastards? Then why don't you just say so? Why do you keep bringing up whether a person is scared for their safety when confronting an intruder in her home when you don't seem to feel it's particularly relevant, and when it doesn't even apply to the Martin case?Like I said in my previous post, you appear to believe that a person should just have the right to shoot an intruder in their home. Period. Just say it. Don't keep going on about hypothetical details that aren't even relevant in the one case about which you are speaking.Martin did not shoot two intruders in his home because he felt it to be necessary to protect his safety. He shot two intruders as a lesson to future intruders. You seem to be alright with it. Fine. But this whole nonsense about fear for one's safety actually appears to be irrelevant to you. It is certainly irrelevant to this particular case.The whole point is, if belief in necessity is an essential condition for the use of lethal force, then one simply must investigate instances of homicide to make sure that the person using the force believed that lethal force was necessary. The Martin case shows that one cannot simply assume that that the killer believed lethal force was necessary just because the victims were burglars -- in the Martin case, it would have been an incorrect assumption.If belief in the necessity for lethal force is an essential condition for the use of lethal force, then Martin's use of lethal force was not legitimate. I don't know whether in British courts the prosecution has to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, but I assume they must prove their case to some level of certainty; in the Martin case the jury was persuaded that Martin did not shoot the intruders because he felt it was necessary to protect his safety; the defense was right there, responding to the evidence that the prosecution provided and providing their own evidence, and they failed to instill enough doubt about the prosecution's case in the minds of the jury.The evidence, weighed by the jury, indicates Martin did not believe that shooting the intruders was necessary to protect his safety. Since you still insist that Martin had every right to shoot intruders in his home, then this is evidently not an issue for you, either. You really seem to be saying that a person should have the right to shoot any intruder in his house just because he is an intruder. Then you should just say that. That would change the discussion, and might render it off-topic for your thread, but it appears that continued talk about fear for personal safety is just obfuscating the Martin case.-Added by edit:I've made some changes in the wording here. The issue in the use of lethal force in self-defense isn't whether or not the person defending herself is afraid -- the issue in self-defense is whether or not the person defending herself believes that lethal force is necessary for her protection.I think that anyone who is interested in the subject and is interested in the issues and peoples' opinions would probably have understood this. However, this may clarify things for those who main interest is venting indignation at anyone who has the temerity to disagree with him.Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

Okay, it's just as I feared. The problem is the use of the word "fear". I've been using the term as a shorthand for the relevant conditions for self-defense:

quote:

---

5. In judging whether the defendant had only used reasonable force, the jury has to take into account all the circumstances, including the situation as the defendant honestly believes it to be at the time, when he was defending himself. It does not matter if the defendant was mistaken in his belief as long as his belief was genuine.

​

6. Accordingly, the jury could only convict Mr Martin if either they did not believe his evidence that he was acting in self-defence or they thought that Mr Martin had used an unreasonable amount of force. These were issues which were ideally suited to a decision of a jury.

​

7. As to the first issue, what Mr Martin believed, the jury heard his evidence and they could only reject that evidence, if they were satisfied it was untrue. As to the second issue, as to what is a reasonable amount of force, obviously opinions can differ. It cannot be left to a defendant to decide what force it is reasonable to use because this would mean that even if a defendant used disproportionate force but he believed he was acting reasonably he would not be guilty of any offence. It is for this reason that it was for the jury, as the representative of the public, to decide the amount of force which it would be reasonable and the amount of force which it would be unreasonable to use in the circumstances in which they found that Mr Martin believed himself to be in. It is only if the jury are sure that the amount of force which was used was unreasonable that they are entitled to find a defendant guilty if he was acting in self-defence.

---

Since I don't want to quote this entire passage every time I want to talk about the necessary conditions for a plea of self-defense, I was using the word "reasonable fear". That, I see, is confusing.I pretty much rephrased my point in the subsequent post, where I use the longer phrase "belief in the necessity of lethal force" instead of the misleading word "fear". I'll let you read that post and comment on it; to prevent misunderstandings and quibbles over the meaning of words, keep in mind that I am using the phrase "belief in the necessity of lethal force" and similar phrases as a shorthand for

quote:

---

5. In judging whether the defendant had only used reasonable force, the jury has to take into account all the circumstances, including the situation as the defendant honestly believes it to be at the time, when he was defending himself. It does not matter if the defendant was mistaken in his belief as long as his belief was genuine.

​

6. Accordingly, the jury could only convict Mr Martin if either they did not believe his evidence that he was acting in self-defence or they thought that Mr Martin had used an unreasonable amount of force. These were issues which were ideally suited to a decision of a jury.

​

7. As to the first issue, what Mr Martin believed, the jury heard his evidence and they could only reject that evidence, if they were satisfied it was untrue. As to the second issue, as to what is a reasonable amount of force, obviously opinions can differ. It cannot be left to a defendant to decide what force it is reasonable to use because this would mean that even if a defendant used disproportionate force but he believed he was acting reasonably he would not be guilty of any offence. It is for this reason that it was for the jury, as the representative of the public, to decide the amount of force which it would be reasonable and the amount of force which it would be unreasonable to use in the circumstances in which they found that Mr Martin believed himself to be in. It is only if the jury are sure that the amount of force which was used was unreasonable that they are entitled to find a defendant guilty if he was acting in self-defence.

---

- You should actually look at the law itself before you make comments about it. Here is a summary of the law:

quote:

---

5. In judging whether the defendant had only used reasonable force, the jury has to take into account all the circumstances, including the situation as the defendant honestly believes it to be at the time, when he was defending himself. It does not matter if the defendant was mistaken in his belief as long as his belief was genuine.

​

6. Accordingly, the jury could only convict Mr Martin if either they did not believe his evidence that he was acting in self-defence or they thought that Mr Martin had used an unreasonable amount of force. These were issues which were ideally suited to a decision of a jury.

​

7. As to the first issue, what Mr Martin believed, the jury heard his evidence and they could only reject that evidence, if they were satisfied it was untrue. As to the second issue, as to what is a reasonable amount of force, obviously opinions can differ. It cannot be left to a defendant to decide what force it is reasonable to use because this would mean that even if a defendant used disproportionate force but he believed he was acting reasonably he would not be guilty of any offence. It is for this reason that it was for the jury, as the representative of the public, to decide the amount of force which it would be reasonable and the amount of force which it would be unreasonable to use in the circumstances in which they found that Mr Martin believed himself to be in. It is only if the jury are sure that the amount of force which was used was unreasonable that they are entitled to find a defendant guilty if he was acting in self-defence.

---

However much you may disagree with it, it certainly says nothing about hiding in closets.

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein