Jean Charles de Menezes verdict

The Metropolitan (London) Police was yesterday found guilty and fined 175,000 for breaking Health and Safety laws over the shooting of Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes, mistakenly identified as a suicide bomber.For those not familiar with the case: in summer 2005 Brazilian electrician, Jean Charles de Menezes was going about his business in London unaware that he was being tracked by police after having been mistakenly identified as a member of a suicide bomber terrorist cell. After boarding a London Underground train he was approached by armed police officers, held down and shot 7 times in the face.What I find shocking about the case is the following:1) Despite the brutal execution of an innocent civilian there was no criminal prosecution brought against the police officers involved. Instead, a Health & Safety case was brought forward, safely in the knowledge that such cases don't carry prison sentences. The fine will simply be taken out of a pot of public money and put into another pot of public money.A brilliant article on the Health & Safety implications can be found here.2) The police initially lied about the circumstances surrounding the case, alleging that Mr de Menezes ran from the police and that he was wearing a suspiciously thick jacket, amongst others. During the course of the investigation, these claims were shown to be untrue. Furthermore, during the case the police produced a photograph showing the face of Mr de Menezes and the actual bombing suspect side-by-side in order to justify their mis-identification. However, this photo was shown to have been altered, thereby attempting to mislead the jury.No charges of 'attempting to pervert the course of justice' have been brought, nor are they likely to.3) The sheer incompetence of the police. Even believing that he was a carrying sucide bomber, they still alowed him to board a bus and a train before finally deciding to stop him.Overall, the whole debacle has been highly disturbing. I find that it sets a precedence for absolving the police of responsibility and following of due process and, in conjunction with the abolition of Habeas Corpus, post 9/11, brings us one step closer to a police state.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.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

Yes, I've been keeping track of this story as well.Unfortunately, ordinary folks like us who actually care about what's right and wrong and what's just and unjust can't do a damn thing about it.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

And in a society where the cops have all the guns, what have they to fear? Not that it takes an armed revolt, but the knowledge that there could be one...-x

quote:

---

And in a society where the cops have all the guns...

---

not true: criminals have guns too. The only people who don't have guns are the ones who really need them, i.e. the general public who find themselves the victims of both criminals and police. it's a wonderful world...

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

quote:

---

Unfortunately, ordinary folks like us who actually care about what's right and wrong and what's just and unjust can't do a damn thing about it.

---

yes, we can. We can take action and say enough is enough. They can't jail (or shoot) everyone. Or can they?.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

I'm sure a lone man would have been able to defend himself against the police by shooting at them in the London Underground. That would have saved his life and have cost no other lives. Shooting at a group of armed and trained marksmen is a wonderful way to calm any situation down and ensure the safety of the public.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I'm sure a lone man would have been able to defend himself against the police by shooting at them in the London Underground. That would have saved his life and have cost no other lives. Shooting at a group of armed and trained marksmen is a wonderful way to calm any situation down and ensure the safety of the public.

---

Next time you're on the Tube and two people with guns run screaming at you, how long will you spend thinking about 'calming the situation down and ensuring the safety of the public' ?You'll just wish you had a gun in the fleeting instance before your face is turned to tomato puree.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

I wasn't proposing I would be thinking of calming the situation down and ensuring the safety of the public. I have been in approximately similar situations before and that was on my mind incidentally. Calming a situation down is a paramount survival tool.That to one side, what I was proposing was that if we were to decide on policy regarding self-defence, the dangers of escalating violence to the public will definitely be something I keep in mind. My wishes are irrelevant - I might wish that I had a device that would instantly kill ten people that surround me whilst preserving my own life. That doesn't mean that if such a device were invented, it would be a good idea for everyone to have one. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I take your point, but at the same time can't help but find a bit hypocritical that we're willing, from the comfort of our armchair, to deprive someone else from a chance that we'd want ourselves -or our family- to have in a similar situation.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

If, as the OP says, the person was held down and shot seven times in the face, it does not sound like the shooters were well trained, and certainly not marksmen.There is a common misconception that police are trained shooters. Unfortunately, this is very often simply not the case. For most police, a handgun is simply more damn weight to carry, another thing to get in the way, something to prod and poke you whenever you sit down, something required. For too many, marksmanship means qualifying above the minimum standard once a year to keep the job.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I wouldn't accuse the men of being well trained. They are however, skilled and trained in firing weapons, holding people down and shooting them. That's more than is true for your average guy walking down the street. So - one person with no training in firefighting, and a group of people who although possibly incompetent, at least have much more experience in handling weapons and firing them in life/death scenarios.Do you honestly think the individual has any hope of surviving if he comes That might be the case in the US, but most police here don't carry firearms so for them the handgun is not simply more damn weight to carry...it's something that those other guys are allowed to carry but not them. The training is carried out by people like the SAS, who believe it is not lack of firearms skill that causes the problems, but the lack of psychological testing to route out the gung-ho types.

Do you realise how unlikely a situation that is in a generally gun free culture compared with say, the US?

Well, if this incident is an example of the training being given, then I would say it is not very encouraging.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The biggest problem is the majority, if not overwhelming majority, who claim to be moral aren't really moral at all. In a democracy, the majority always wins.It is obvious to me that what happened to the electrician was unjust. It is obvious to you that what happened to the electrician was unjust. Unfortunately, it is not so obvious to the rest of society that what happened to the electrician was unjust.As far as the rest of society is concern, the law has spoken. Life goes on. It's only people like us that are bothered by the apparent bias. Unfortunately, in short of advocating a violent revolution, there is little else we can do.

---

Sugar baby love, sugar baby love
I didn't mean to make you blue
Sugar baby love, sugar baby love
I didn't mean to hurt you.

​

All lovers make
Make the same mistakes
Yes they do
Yes, all lovers make
Make the same mistakes
As me and you

​

Sugar baby love, sugar baby love
I didn't mean to make you blue
Sugar baby love, sugar baby love
I didn't mean to hurt you.

​

People take my advice
If you love somebody
Don't think twice.

​

Love you baby love, sugar baby love
Love him anyway, love him everyday

I think you'll find that this isn't an example of the training being given - unless you think the SAS would regularly carry out acts like that?It is, as the trainers argue, not a question of training, but one of psychology. Some police officers simply shouldn't be given access to weapons, and there are some officers that do have guns that the trainers do not believe should have - but they are powerless to fail the officers because being a crazy lunatic is not grounds for failure.That, if true, is very discouraging.