Jean Charles de Menezes verdict

His words and actions previously were a material fact in establishing whether or not it he could have intended to kill Barras out of vengeance rather than intending to defend himself. ie., is the defendent the kind of person that would lie in wait? The answer is, based on the evidence, possibly. It's called establishing motive. He wouldn't necessarily feel in the requisite amount of danger if he was armed and waiting for them. He could have felt the requisite amount of danger if he was awoken by thieves who shone a bright light into his face. That is what the jury system is for. Two people on the jury agreed with you on at least some issues, but ten people did not. Because nobody disputes that the police killing De Menezes were lead to believe that he posed a danger to them and to others, and thus reasonably believed that to be the case. Or do they? Any evidence of a suggestion of this? No, it was deemed unacceptable because the ballistics showed all of the shots were not fired from the staircase, one might have been, but the other two were not. The position of the casings indicated that there was no movement between the shots, thus Mr Martin's story didn't add up. No. It would have to be shown that he had reason to believe that (say, a commander telling him that he was, and a policy of shoot to kill) the burglar was a suicide bomber. If he just thought he was a burglar he would hopefully be prosecuted. Only if you believe Mr Martin's side of the story, disbelieve the forensic evidence, and disbelieve that the officers were acting on what information they had been given. Maybe the officers that did the shooting were wrong, but just saying they were won't convince me. Perhaps you can point to some evidence that would lead to this conclusion?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Because victim and aggressor are not two sides of the same coin. Let us say the circumstances turned out a little differently - and the lies the surviving thief initially told were actually true. They are walking around and they discover an old abandoned looking building. You are chased by stray vicious dogs and you judge the best way to avoid getting attacked is to get inside the building. It looks like an old dilapidated building and you find what you think is the shed. Quickly checking you see that it definitely looks abandoned and without thinking any further you break into the building to seek sanctuary.Whilst there you decide to take a look around and then without warning get shot - your friend is killed.Who is the aggressor and who is the victim? Can the shooter know for sure that the people in his rundown property mean him harm? Well, maybe we should side on the property owner's side - but what justice would that be? Especially if those dogs turned out to have been allowed to roam around by the property owner.If most burglars flee upon discovery never to return and if most injuries inflicted by burglars on people are as a result of that person blocking their escape route (or attempting to tackle them) - it would be reasonable to assume that burglars do not pose significant risk to the person.For instance, if Mr Martin had woken up to a disturbance, gone to investigate with his illegally owned firearm, and fearing for his life upon being dazzled by a light from an unidentified intruder - it might be considered reasonable force to open fire at the intruder. That was why the case centred around the circumstances of the shooting. If Mr Martin's testimony turned out to be supported by the forensics the jury may have decided that his actions were reasonable. If the circumstances were as the prosecution put forward, it might be considered unreasonable force by the jury.The jury decided that the evidence pointed towards the prosecutions version, and pointed away from Mr Martin's, and that Mr Martin's actions were unreasonable force.

Right, exactly. That would seem to indicate the end of that person's aggressions to your home, at least for the time being. When they run away, that's the sign that you've successfully completed the task of defending your home.Thus, if you put a bullet in their back, that's murder. Seems pretty obvious to me. Violence in self-defense includes neither violence to prevent non-imminent future acts nor violence in retribution for past acts. Both of those are murder.

quote:

---

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.

---

No, read my posts again and this time pay attention: I'm not talking generically, I'm talking about very specific circumstances, i.e. someone intruding into someone else's home at night.If I was advocating the use of violence whenever someone feels threatened then I'd also be supporting the Iraq invasion, amongst others. But I don't and you know why? Because Iraq, unlike the Martin burglars, never invaded my home country. Had it done so I'd be all for chasing them all the way to Baghdad.

quote:

---

We are not talking about simply someone breaking into someone else's house

---

Yes, WE ARE!

quote:

---

We are talking about shooting someone in the back when they are running away, and therefore after they've ceased to be a threat.

---

ceased to be a threat ??! well, if they're running away a mile down the road, perhaps. But if they're running *in your living room, having just broken into your house* they are a very real and present threat!! It's the middle of the night, you've been brutally woken up, your adrenailn and heartbeat are maxed out, hell you don't even know if they're running away or not!Now, let's get something straight. I've asked before and I ask again:

quote:

---

I don't think that there's a rational person out there who does NOT find two intruders breaking into their home in the middle of the night a real and reasonable threat, do you ?

---

also, can you make sure you spell your answer in British English please, I wouldn't want to mis-interpret it.

quote:

---

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?

---

I'm just saying that the victim presenting a weapon won't always deter the attacker, sometimes it only makes them change their tactics. I have no experience where the victim pulled out a gun, but I've seen a few cases where the victim used other weapons without scaring the attacker off for good.

quote:

---

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?

---

Funny you should say this since the OP is about the De Menezes case. De Menezes was held down and shot seven times in the face. Now, I'll go out on a limb here and suggest this *is* inappropriate force. The officers responsible were *not* held criminally liable. So I'd say that yes, you are wrong about this.Which is the point that I've been making all along this thread. It seems that in British law if you're an eccentric old man with radical views or just an ordinary Fred Bloggs you're that little bit more criminally liable than, say, a police officer hunting for terrorists.

---

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

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

quote:

---

His words and actions previously were a material fact in establishing whether or not it he could have intended to kill Barras out of vengeance rather than intending to defend himself. ie., is the defendent the kind of person that would lie in wait? The answer is, based on the evidence, possibly. It's called establishing motive.

---

You establish motive for the perpetrator of a crime, not the victim who reacts to it. Martin should have never been held criminally accountable in the first place, just like the police who shot De Menezes aren't. Once it was clearly established that the two intruders had indeed broken into his house in the middle of the night then that should be it, if you're feeling particularly righteous then slap a health & safety violation on him and leave it at that.

quote:

---

Because nobody disputes that the police killing De Menezes were lead to believe that he posed a danger to them and to others, and thus reasonably believed that to be the case. Or do they? Any evidence of a suggestion of this?

---

No, asbolutely not. The preliminary investigation established that they did indeed believe de Menezes was a danger and that was that. Tony Martin similarly claims he believed he was in danger, there is undisputable evidence of the burglars knowingly breaking and entering into his house while knowing he was in and still people feel the need to doubt his thoughts and feelings, question his sanity and eventually throw him in jail.On one side we have the boys in blue trying to 'do the right thing', on the other an eccentric, extreme loner trying to defend himself and his property. One is absolved as an 'honest mistake' without a criminal trial, the other crucified and having to spend years in jail.Have you read Camus's 'The Stranger'? It's funny how sometimes life imitates art.

quote:

---

No, it was deemed unacceptable because the ballistics showed all of the shots were not fired from the staircase, one might have been, but the other two were not. The position of the casings indicated that there was no movement between the shots, thus Mr Martin's story didn't add up.

---

You're presenting the details of Martin's trial. Noone's disputing the legality of his conviction, so that's irrelevant. What I'm asking is why isn't the police of the DeMenezes case put in the same position as Martin was, i.e. why wasn't a criminal court jury asked to decide whether they used unreasonable force or not?

quote:

---

Maybe the officers that did the shooting were wrong, but just saying they were won't convince me. Perhaps you can point to some evidence that would lead to this conclusion?

---

errr..the fact that De Menezes *wasn't* actually a suicide bomber ??

---

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

You can be a victim of a crime and a criminal at the same time. He was a victim of an attempted robbery and became a criminal when he killed a fleeing robber.

---

Live every week like it's Shark Week!
Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

quote:

---

Let us say the circumstances turned out a little differently - and the lies the surviving thief initially told were actually true. They are walking around and they discover an old abandoned looking building. You are chased by stray vicious dogs and you judge the best way to avoid getting attacked is to get inside the building. It looks like an old dilapidated building and you find what you think is the shed. Quickly checking you see that it definitely looks abandoned and without thinking any further you break into the building to seek sanctuary.

​

Whilst there you decide to take a look around and then without warning get shot - your friend is killed.

​

Who is the aggressor and who is the victim?

---

That's an interesting example. Basically, you're talking about someone getting shot 'in good faith' while he was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.Well, what do you think? What should the repercussions be for the landlord who shot the unlucky chap, believing he was a real burglar?

---

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

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

I've asked (twice): you replied: Is that a Yes? would you find two intruders breaking into your home in the middle of the night a real and reasonable threat, yes or no? err.. yes I know they disagree with me. I am :
A) claiming that, in a just and fair society, Martin should have never been criminally prosecuted, and
B) given that he was prosecuted and convicted on the grounds of using unreasonable force, I''m asking "where is the criminal court jury deciding on whether the police who shot DeMenezes used unreasonable force??"

---

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

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

quote:

---

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.

---

so, you'd be prepared to take the risk that they may have guns which they will point and shoot at where your warning comes from ?

quote:

---

If they were running away, then it would not be reasonable to use deadly force.

---

How would you know they're running away? Remember, it's middle of the night, all you can see is shadows scurrying about. You heart's beating like a Gatling gun and you have an overwhelming urge to take a crap. How do you know they're running away?Listen, I don't know if you've ever been caught in violent situations where some stranger attacks you -judging by your responses I'd say you haven't- but anyone who has will tell you there's no such thing as 'reasonable force'. By definition, it implies an ability to reason and in such situations you can't reason you just react, adrenalin takes over and you lash out with all you've got (or run like hell). A better definition would be 'with whatever force you can muster' and if you can muster a loaded shotgun then you will use it.Now if you're on the street, running away from such a situation may be an option. In your own home, especially if you have family, this option doesn't exist. 'Reasonable force' is sadly just another pretext that allows innocent victims to be put away.

---

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

Absolutely. That is why a reasonable and responsible person trains for such situations under as realistic conditions as can be arranged. You train so that you can make the snap judgment to fire or not fire.The goal is to simply stop a threat, no more. Once the threat is stopped there is no further reason for force.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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

No, you establish motive for a person who is in a court being accused of perpetrating a crime. Mr Marting was being accused of perpetrating a crime. So the police shouldn't have investigated into a human death any further than that? They were criminals, so it was OK to kill them? Sounds foolish to me. Fortunately the police investigated further and found sufficient evidence to bring forward a court case accusing Mr Martin of murder. The CPS agreed, and the case went forward. If they didn't have enough evidence to in principle find Mr Martin guilty of murder beyond doubt he might have faced different charges. There was reason to think that the killing wasn't clearly self defence, that another hypothesis could reasonably be put forward. You reject the evidence because I'm trying to establish the legality? No, I am presenting the evidence to show that Mr Martin's story of defending himself was falsified by the evidence. That the alternative story of him shooting in vengeance was much stronger was because of its supporting evidence.If he was defending himself - he shouldn't be in jail for murder. If he was not defending himself then he should be in jail for murder (unless of diminished capacity). In this case, the evidence showed that he might not have been acting in self defence. In the De Menezes case no evidence showed that the officers were not acting in defence of the public.Surely you see that the two cases are sufficiently different that to draw the conclusion of hypocrisy is premature? I'm not asking what makes you think the police were mistaken, but wrong in the moral sense.Turning to my example in Message 77, what if it turned out that the burglars were merely seeking shelter from aggressive dogs? I'm sure you would defend Mr Martin the same, assuming his story to be true.But what if Mr Martin's story wasn't true? What if he had maneouvered around the house, waited for the thieves to come to him with the intention of killing them out of vengeance only to find out that they weren't thieves but a lost boy and his older brother investigating an abandoned house they found whilst seeking shelter from aggressive dogs?Would you defend Mr Martin as using reasonable force then?To answer your question of Message 83, the landlord should not feel be found guilty or not guilty based on whether the people he perceived to be imminent threats to his person actually presented threat. If he was honestly defending himself having been startled in the middle of the night and fearing for his life, I would not consider him a murderer.