Jean Charles de Menezes verdict

UK Police marksmen are a different thing entirely to how firearms are provided to US police officers. The training is extensive and rigorous.The other thing to remember here is that they were not working to their Standard Operation Procedures. Generally Police marksmen are trained to put 3 rounds into the chest as the means of taking down a gunman. However in this situation, that was changed because they were (mistakenly) expecting to be facing a suicide bomber. My understanding (from talking to MPS officers) is that, taking on board the experience of the IDF, they were told to go for a headshot to ensure that they would not trigger any suicide belts and to ensure that the "bomber" had no chance of setting off his explosives.

quote:

---

The SAS are trained to not establish risk, to not adequately identify targets, to wait until the last possible moment and then shoot to kill a suspect without adequate warnings or attempts to establish contact?

---

The SAS are trained to go for headshots - this is because three shots in the right place will kill someone instantly - something that chestshots might not do. As for warnings, while in debriefs and legal situations, they must suggest they give a warning, in practice this never happens - this is pretty well-known in the "community".

quote:

---

The key in this particular case is if the suspect was on the ground and in custody, under control, were the shots to CNS justified?

---

I have no idea - I don't know the circumstances of the encounter.

quote:

---

I also find it deeply hypocritical that the same justice system that sentences people to years in jail for killing an intruder in their own home, justifies people who hold a stranger down and turn his face into a bloody pulp.

---

Martin was a psycho, he's not someone I'd hold up as a good example of citizens holding licenses for firearms. He shoot a young boy in the back while he was running away. He had his firearms license removed because he shoot at people picking apples on his land. His own brother had to leave the country due to harassment from Martin, who went around and shoot out his windows - the guy is a nutcase.And he wasn't locked up by the justice system - he was locked up by a jury of his peers who found that he was guilty of murder rather than manslaughter. He only got that reduced to manslaughter on appeal because he pulled the looneytunes defence.

quote:

---

How often has this 'not giving a warning' thing been tested in a crowded public place?

---

I'm going off memory here so could be wrong - but I think Gibraltar is an example of this, the official account says that they identified themselves but witnesses say that they just gunned down the IRA suspects without warning.

quote:

---

Do the SAS do a lot of actions in this kind of scenario?

---

In crowded public places? To the best of our knowledge, not in the UK but the problem with discussing this is that plainclothes operations aboard are rarely discussed, so we don't have much information to go off. What we do know from the accounts of former servicemen is identifying themselves to people is not high on their list of priorities.

quote:

---

but it is hard for someone who shoots a few rounds annually at qualifying to be as competent as someone who practices regularly often firing thousands of rounds a month.

---

British firearms officers do shoot regularly and have to requalify on a regular basis (I *think* it's every 8 weeks or so). The basis course to handle firearms is something like 65 days and this is before taking refresher training and other courses.

quote:

---

If the public were allowed to own guns what would the general proficiency level be? I just don't know.

​

Those are issues for you folk to decide.

---

That's easy to answer - I own 2 shotguns, the general proficiency level was that I didn't have a crime record and got a gunsafe fitted - that was it.

A pair like this -UK Gunroom: Greener, W. W Set of 4 12 gauge Shotgun (for sale)(I'm ashamed to say I don't know the correct model as my brother got them for me).

quote:

---

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?

---

I don't know - how many? is it common for people when faced with someone firing a gun to run off and then turn round and run straight back at them?Edited by CK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I'm still trying to understand why in the event of acts of aggression the onus is always on the victim to assume best intentions on behalf of the aggressor?

---

How can someone running in the other direction be classed as an aggressor? - you have the right to defend yourself that is preventive, you have no right to take punitive action.

quote:

---

Why did Tony Martin have to assume that this intruder was running to get away, never to return, and not running to get his own gun/mates/etc in order to finish the job ?

---

By that logic I can kill anyone who crosses me because in some future situation they may return mob-handed or carrying a gun.

quote:

---

First, juries are asked to apply the law -not justice. Second, juries are asked to apply the law -not interpret it. There is no question that the intruder was facing away from the victim at the time of the shooting. Therefore, a juror would have to find the defendant guilty, even though the juror might think that this is unjust or that the spirit of the law is outside this case.

---

The jury were asked to consider if they thought this was manslaughter - they did not, they considered it to be murder. From the court transcript 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.The jury who had full access to the facts and testimony did not believe he acted in self-defence, so it's a red herring to suggest the jury were left with no choice in the matter. If they believed that Martin could reasonably assume the threat was high, he would have been found not guilty regardless of the fact that he shot him in the back.and the crux of the case has never been disputed - he wasn't shooting at them to scare them off, he was aware of their presence and was lying in wait with the intention of killing them. He only got his sentence reduced to manslaughter on appeal because he went for diminished capacity defence.

however only in a british court could a court transcript finish in the following manner:

quote:

---

MR WOLKIND: The appeal having substantially succeeded, I ask for costs from central funds. The defence have been privately funded throughout.

​

THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE: Thank you. Any other application?

​

MR WOLKIND: My Lord, yes. One other matter I raise today, my birthday.

​

THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE: Many happy returns!

---

quote:

---

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.

---

That's broadly right - the level of force you can use is entirely to be "reasonable" (reasonable being determined by a jury if it gets that far) to the level of threat you felt - it doesn't even have to be a real threat.Let's say you were working in a shop and a man came in and push a blanket in your face and it had too long barrels under it - he claims it's a shotgun and he's going to kill you if you don't open the till. In a panic, you stab a knife in his throat and he dies. The barrels turn out to be two bits of pipe - all the law would be considered with is that it would be reasonable for you to assume that he really did have a shotgun and respond accordingly. Edited by CK, : typo.

quote:

---

And this was questioned and deemed unacceptable because Martin was an eccentric old man with non-conformist views.

---

No it was deemed unacceptable because the forensic evidence proved it was a pack of lies.