de Menezes Inquest Verdict

Gyalist

The jury at the inquest into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes today rejected Scotland Yard's claim that he was lawfully killed as part of an anti-terrorism operation.

Banned by the coroner, Sir Michael Wright, from returning a verdict of unlawful killing, the five men and five women decided on an open verdict – the most critical that was available to them.

In a series of answers to a list of crucial questions, they dismissed the testimony of the senior firearms officer who shot De Menezes – suggesting they did not believe the officer was acting in self-defence.

The jury found that the firearms officer, C12, did not shout "armed police" before shooting De Menezes and that the Brazilian did not move towards him aggressively, prompting the fatal shot.

The damning verdict leaves Scotland Yard in turmoil.

LINK

Will all those posters who were quick to defend the actions of the Police now come to their senses?

Smart Bug

Probably not, no.

kenco

Verdict not really a surprise. Yes he was an innocent victim and while the police were ott in their response it has to be viewed in the context of the previous days events.

With all such things there is no absolute right or wrongs (think back to Gibralter)

Biggins

I think its a disgrace that "unlawfully killing" was not allowed and taken out of the options the jury had.
That was clearly censorship ordered by the government to cover their ass!

anonymous_joe

That poor poor bugger. It's an absolute tragedy.

I've no doubts that they were told he was a terrorist and at some level someone made the decision that he was going to die. Similarly to Bloody Sunday they're closing ranks. It's not exactly rare for police forces or amies to do that. They fúcked up, badly, and someone's going to have to take the fall, because this one will not go away.

Gyalist

Biggins wrote: »

I think its a disgrace that "unlawfully killing" was not allowed and taken out of the options the jury had.
That was clearly censorship ordered by the government to cover their ass!

I'm not so sure that the government has any influence on the actions of the Coroner. What is clear, however, is that the Establishment always protects its own. Maybe a few low-ranking officers will have to face prosecution but the policy-makers always get away with it.

Fratton Fred

Biggins wrote: »

I think its a disgrace that "unlawfully killing" was not allowed and taken out of the options the jury had.
That was clearly censorship ordered by the government to cover their ass!

plus a minor matter of "The Law" as well I believe.

No one who was not in London at the time can really judge these guys. Its easy sitting behind a PC condemning them, but there was a real sense of fear and there is no reason to presume that did not affect the Police involved.

Yes it was a tragic **** up, but as was said earlier, you have to view it in the context of what happened the day before.

Biggins

I agree in whats been said - but an "open verdict!"

We all know how he died, who did it and the circumstances.

An "open verdict" I thought means that the jury has come to a conclusion that there is many unknowns and that they can't decide how he died.

I know the jurys hands were tied to and just forced to pick from two choices.
I'd call that a form of bullying.

lostexpectation

the police were hysterical , they didn't have a positive ID, thus broke their own rules.

Kold

They pointed a gun at an innocent man and shot him dead. How is that not murder?

Nodin

anonymous_joe wrote: »

That poor poor bugger. It's an absolute tragedy.

I've no doubts that they were told he was a terrorist and at some level someone made the decision that he was going to die. Similarly to Bloody Sunday they're closing ranks. It's not exactly rare for police forces or amies to do that. They fúcked up, badly, and someone's going to have to take the fall, because this one will not go away.

Given the sudden urge by the two shooters to invent a story, I'd say they felt they were being left to hang. Charging or sanctioning them would be as useful as charging the weapons they used.

DarkJager

Kold wrote: »

They pointed a gun at an innocent man and shot him dead. How is that not murder?

He brought suspicion upon himself by his actions in the tube station. What would people have thought if he was actually a suicide bomber? I'm sure they'd blame the police for not stopping him. At the end of the day, the guy made a bad move in the wrong place at the wrong time and got himself killed.

Kold

DarkJager wrote: »

He brought suspicion upon himself by his actions in the tube station. What would people have thought if he was actually a suicide bomber? I'm sure they'd blame the police for not stopping him. At the end of the day, the guy made a bad move in the wrong place at the wrong time and got himself killed.

No. He went about his daily business like every man should be able to do and someone shot him for no good reason. No good reason at all.

DarkJager

DarkJager wrote: »

He brought suspicion upon himself by his actions in the tube station. What would people have thought if he was actually a suicide bomber? I'm sure they'd blame the police for not stopping him. At the end of the day, the guy made a bad move in the wrong place at the wrong time and got himself killed.

what?
did you miss the part where the jury found that he did not move aggressively ?
they picked a random guy and shot him, by the looks of things

Dinner

Biggins wrote: »

I think its a disgrace that "unlawfully killing" was not allowed and taken out of the options the jury had.
That was clearly censorship ordered by the government to cover their ass!

Not really no. A verdict of unlawful killing requires the same burden of proof that murder does, ie. beyond all reasonable doubt.

The coroner could see that there was just not enough evidence to allow such a verdict to even be considered.

Even if unlawful killing was allowed to be considered, the correct verdict would still have been an open verdict. There was no direct evidence to indict that it was un/lawful.

Biggins

Arabel wrote: »

Not really no. A verdict of unlawful killing requires the same burden of proof that murder does, ie. beyond all reasonable doubt.

The coroner could see that there was just not enough evidence to allow such a verdict to even be considered.

Even if unlawful killing was allowed to be considered, the correct verdict would still have been an open verdict. There was no direct evidence to indict that it was un/lawful.

To your credit and to be fair, you do make good points.

DarkJager

bluewolf wrote: »

what?
did you miss the part where the jury found that he did not move aggressively ?
they picked a random guy and shot him, by the looks of things

So the jury found he did not move aggresively? Were the jury there the day he was shot? Don't think so. As for being a random guy, he fitted the description of a terror suspect - which is unfortunate.

According to the timeline for his death, he got up out of his seat when the police entered the train and "moved" towards them. Now put yourself in the cops position. You have someone coming towards you (aggresively or non aggresively) who has been identified as a possible suicide bomber. Would the simple fact that this man was approaching you in the first place not make you immediately fear for the safety or yourself and your colleagues?

OPENROAD

Kold wrote: »

No. He went about his daily business like every man should be able to do and someone shot him for no good reason. No good reason at all.

This was covered on boards.ie before, do you know the circimstances of the events the day before and the 07/07. Do you know what led the police to be outside the appartments?

OPENROAD

Fratton Fred wrote: »

plus a minor matter of "The Law" as well I believe.

No one who was not in London at the time can really judge these guys. Its easy sitting behind a PC condemning them, but there was a real sense of fear and there is no reason to presume that did not affect the Police involved.

Yes it was a tragic **** up, but as was said earlier, you have to view it in the context of what happened the day before.

Agreed it was absolutely tragic and my heart really does go out to his family and in particular his mother. However as you say the circumstances in London at the time were such that the city was on the highest alert after the 07/07 and events 24 hours earlier.

Mistakes were made and it does appear that their was a breakdown in communication but events were moving so quickly, I don't think you can blame the SO19 officers who went down Stockwell that day, they believed they were facing a suicide bomber and put their own lives at risk to protect the public.

The Master

I heard the were really looking for his brother.............
Dennis de Menezes

Kold

OPENROAD wrote: »

they believed they were facing a suicide bomber and put their own lives at risk to protect the public.

I'm sorry.. Put their lives at risk?

OPENROAD

Kold wrote: »

I'm sorry.. Put their lives at risk?

Possible Suicide bomber!! they could easily have been blown to bits just like the other tube passangers.

Kold

OPENROAD wrote: »

Possible Suicide bomber!! they could easily have been blown to bits just like the other tube passangers.

So my life is on the line every time I don't know exactly what someone is up to and I'm holding a deadly weapon?

tedstriker

It's a tough case in fairness. You've got an innocent man shot 7 times by police. They got it wrong but in their defence they thought they were on the verge of saving many lives and needed to take extreme measures. It's all about the level of wrongness.

It wasn't me!

Kold wrote: »

So my life is on the line every time I don't know exactly what someone is up to and I'm holding a deadly weapon?

Hypothetically, you've identified the person your intelligence tells you is a suicide bomber, moving in a manner that clearly provokes your intention. You're armed. You know you can kill them, but you have no idea how long it'll take them to detonate their bomb (remember, at this stage, we're relying on the information we've been given, and as far as we're concerned, this fecker is a suicide bomber). You're terrified. You're scared you'll die. You're scared your friends beside you will die. You're terrified of ****ing up and being the guy who freezes and is therefore responsible for the whole station being blown up and hundreds of people being killed or mutilated. Remember, you're armed and you've got to be decisive: What do you do?

Sir Gallagher

kenco wrote: »

Verdict not really a surprise. Yes he was an innocent victim and while the police were ott in their response it has to be viewed in the context of the previous days events.

With all such things there is no absolute right or wrongs (think back to Gibralter)

Think back to the Guildford four, same thing all over again, and i'm pretty sure that was wrong.

Kold

In fairness I'm not really demanding that the individuals are harshly punished. I just think that it should be made known that the police seriously f*cked up here. They overstepped their mark and should not be allowed to do this in future.

DarkJager

Kold wrote: »

In fairness I'm not really demanding that the individuals are harshly punished. I just think that it should be made known that the police seriously f*cked up here. They overstepped their mark and should not be allowed to do this in future.

Of course, they should be slapped on the wrist and told never ever to do it again :rolleyes:. That will be the same day you see another terror attack as "breaking news" on Sky.

OPENROAD

Kold wrote: »

So my life is on the line every time I don't know exactly what someone is up to and I'm holding a deadly weapon?

You are told that person x is a suicide bomber.
Person X has already entered the tube station and is heading towards a tube train.
24 hours earlier three men have attempted to blow themselves up on tube trains killing innocent people.
You believe that person x is one of these suicide bombers.
It would only take a second for person x to detonate the bomb.

Kold

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Hypothetically, you've identified the person your intelligence tells you is a suicide bomber, moving in a manner that clearly provokes your intention. You're armed. You know you can kill them, but you have no idea how long it'll take them to detonate their bomb (remember, at this stage, we're relying on the information we've been given, and as far as we're concerned, this fecker is a suicide bomber). You're terrified. You're scared you'll die. You're scared your friends beside you will die. You're terrified of ****ing up and being the guy who freezes and is therefore responsible for the whole station being blown up and hundreds of people being killed or mutilated. Remember, you're armed and you've got to be decisive: What do you do?

I ask whether they are certain that this man is a terrorist. If they say yes then I shoot him. But my superiors had better be ready to face the consequences of my actions.

DarkJager

Kold wrote: »

I ask whether they are certain that this man is a terrorist. If they say yes then I shoot him. But my superiors had better be ready to face the consequences of my actions.

I'm sure your superiors would be a lot more worried about members of their force and the general public being blown to bits in a tube station than some possible terrorist suspect getting his cap peeled.

omgiluvxmas

kill mankind is what i say, then there would be no terrorists and nobody to kill.

Kold

DarkJager wrote: »

I'm sure your superiors would be a lot more worried about members of their force and the general public being blown to bits in a tube station than some possible terrorist suspect getting his cap peeled.

Well that's horrific arrogance if they're willing to kill an innocent man just like that.

Nermal

DarkJager wrote: »

According to the timeline for his death, he got up out of his seat when the police entered the train and "moved" towards them. Now put yourself in the cops position. You have someone coming towards you (aggresively or non aggresively) who has been identified as a possible suicide bomber. Would the simple fact that this man was approaching you in the first place not make you immediately fear for the safety or yourself and your colleagues?

The inquest found he didn't move towards the cops. It also found they didn't identify themselves to him.

Let's not forget the cops:
- lying, saying he vaulted the turnstile, when he didn't
- destroying CCTV evidence
- lying again, saying they identified themselves, when they didn't
- illegally changing their written reports
- lying again, suggesting he ran towards them
- purposely leaking reports showing he'd taken cocaine at some point
- purposely revealing he was an illegal immigrant, hoping to turn some racists against him
- lying, suggesting his description matched that of the suspect, who was a black somalian
- telling a few more porkies, suggesting he had suspicious puffa jacket on, not the denim jacket he actually wore

on the whole, showing themselves to be bungling, deceitful cowards at best and murderous testosterone-fueled thugs at worst.

It wasn't me!

Kold wrote: »

In fairness I'm not really demanding that the individuals are harshly punished. I just think that it should be made known that the police seriously f*cked up here. They overstepped their mark and should not be allowed to do this in future.

Kold wrote: »

I ask whether they are certain that this man is a terrorist. If they say yes then I shoot him. But my superiors had better be ready to face the consequences of my actions.

I'm addressing these simultaneously. First, there's no time for consultation, the guy is there, the call has to be made immediately. Second, not allowed do it in future? Of course the same thing has the potential to happen again. The only fault was with the intelligence. His superiors had the same intelligence, and since intelligence is largely a balance of probabilities, these things happen. Frankly, I absolutely understand the refusal to accept that they screwed up. If they did, the next time, the guy with the gun won't be as confident in his orders and will hesitate, and maybe that'll save an innocent man, or maybe it'll get him and several hundred other people blown to shreds. What do you do?

De Menezes' death is an awful tragedy, but I really couldn't find fault with the circumstances of it. It's extremely unfortunate, but life is not fair, and it could have been a lot worse.

OPENROAD

Kold wrote: »

In fairness I'm not really demanding that the individuals are harshly punished. I just think that it should be made known that the police seriously f*cked up here. They overstepped their mark and should not be allowed to do this in future.

If these events that took place in the month of July were taking place in Cork, would you feel the same.

As I have said my heart really does go out to the family. The police have apologised both publically and privately to the family several times,the met have paid compensation to the family( now I know no amount of money could ever compenaste the family,-just mentioned it as this is what has happened) No doubt mistakes were made in the operations centre and a number of suggestions have been made and have been put into practice. My main point is that you can't blame the S019 officers, they believed they were facing a suicide bomber. What would you have done?

MagicMarker

DarkJager wrote: »

So the jury found he did not move aggresively? Were the jury there the day he was shot? Don't think so. As for being a random guy, he fitted the description of a terror suspect - which is unfortunate.

Sure what's the point in having a jury? They're never there when it happens!! Useless the lot of em! And he looked like a terrorist, better kill him so!

Seriously, are you saying these words?

DarkJager wrote: »

According to the timeline for his death, he got up out of his seat when the police entered the train and "moved" towards them. Now put yourself in the cops position. You have someone coming towards you (aggresively or non aggresively) who has been identified as a possible suicide bomber. Would the simple fact that this man was approaching you in the first place not make you immediately fear for the safety or yourself and your colleagues?

Witness today explained that this was not the case, he did not move towards the cops and he was in no way aggressive.

Personally, I think the cops fúcked up big time, and now they're corroborating their stories to cover their own asses, saying protocols were followed that never were (identifying themselves for one!).

omgiluvxmas

and people will lap up their lies. i would expect this sort of thing from the old bill tho.

MagicMarker

It wasn't me! wrote: »

De Menezes' death is an awful tragedy, but I really couldn't find fault with the circumstances of it. It's extremely unfortunate, but life is not fair, and it could have been a lot worse.

No, it couldn't have been a lot worse, because he wasn't a suicide bomber, it was never confirmed by intelligence that he was a suicide bomber. They just went on a hunch.

As for not finding fault with the circumstances?

The circumstance surrounding it is probably one of the biggest faults in met history! Due to their own incompetence they executed an innocent man in public by shooting him 7 times in the face.

The death of De Menezes is the worst possible outcome.

It wasn't me!

MagicMarker wrote: »

No, it couldn't have been a lot worse, because he wasn't a suicide bomber, it was never confirmed by intelligence that he was a suicide bomber. They just went on a hunch.

As for not finding fault with the circumstances?

The circumstance surrounding it is probably one of the biggest faults in met history! Due to their own incompetence they executed an innocent man in public by shooting him 7 times in the face.

The death of De Menezes is the worst possible outcome.

I disagree. Far worse is if the intelligence is correct, the officer pauses to question it himself, and gets vaporised along with the station for his trouble. The action was affirmative. Hindsight is wonderful, but in the same position, I like to hope I'd have had the nerve, courage and will to act as affirmatively as the officer did. In the circumstances, it was the right call. Remember, you only have the information you're given to work with, you have milliseconds to make a decision and no time for second guessing.

dlofnep

DarkJager wrote: »

So the jury found he did not move aggresively? Were the jury there the day he was shot? Don't think so.

No, but the witnesses were. A court of law found him to be not aggressive based on evidence. That's a little bit more credible than you or any hypothetical argument you can stick together.

DarkJager wrote: »

As for being a random guy, he fitted the description of a terror suspect - which is unfortunate.

So being brazilian is the description of a terror suspect? Unforunate isn't a word I'd use to describe the situation. Blatant abuse of authority and disregard for basic human rights is more accurate.

DarkJager wrote: »

According to the timeline for his death, he got up out of his seat when the police entered the train and "moved" towards them. Now put yourself in the cops position. You have someone coming towards you (aggresively or non aggresively)

Non-aggressively. This has already been found in a court of law. Let's not try strengthen your already weak argument but adding nonsense.

DarkJager wrote: »

who has been identified as a possible suicide bomber. Would the simple fact that this man was approaching you in the first place not make you immediately fear for the safety or yourself and your colleagues?

How about.

"Hi there, Police. Identify yourself."

It sure beats shooting someone ELEVEN TIMES.. 7 times in the head. Not to mention, the police already had him under control and restrained. There was absolutely no need for use of excessive force. The man was just going about his day and was viciously and brutally gunned down by scumbag police officers.

OPENROAD

MagicMarker wrote: »

No, it couldn't have been a lot worse, because he wasn't a suicide bomber, it was never confirmed by intelligence that he was a suicide bomber. They just went on a hunch.

As for not finding fault with the circumstances?

The circumstance surrounding it is probably one of the biggest faults in met history! Dues to their own incompetence they executed an innocent man in public by shooting him 7 times in the face.

The death of De Menezes is the worst possible outcome.

From what I know he came out of the appartments that the suicide bomber was living. The officer that was supposed to be in position to get the best identity was taking a leak(cock up) They were not 100% sure as to his identity, however a positive id was eventually given, of course we know now that this was wrong. Also it took too long for so19 officers to be scrambled therefore the opportunity to stop him earlier was lost. The operation was a cock up, it had been put in place in the early hours of the morning, however people have to realise what was happening in London at the time.
The met have apologised numerous times. The acting commissioner has admitted that terrible mistakes were made by his force and that they have to take full responsibility.

MagicMarker

It wasn't me! wrote: »

I disagree. Far worse is if the intelligence is correct, the officer pauses to question it himself, and gets vaporised along with the station for his trouble. The action was affirmative. Hindsight is wonderful, but in the same position, I like to hope I'd have had the nerve, courage and will to act as affirmatively as the officer did. In the circumstances, it was the right call. Remember, you only have the information you're given to work with, you have milliseconds to make a decision and no time for second guessing.

But the intelligence wasn't correct, it wasn't even intelligence at the time. They didn't know, he was never confirmed as the suspect they were looking for.

In the same position, I hope I'd follow protocol, I'd identify myself as a police officer. They did nothing, they followed him onto the train, he was not acting aggressive, they had restrained him when he was shot in the face. What part of that is acting affirmatively?

It's called jumping the gun. Something armed, trained police shouldn't do when there are doubts to your own intelligence.

MagicMarker

OPENROAD wrote: »

From what I know he came out of the appartments that the suicide bomber was living. The officer that was supposed to be in position to get the best identity was taking a leak(cock up) They were not 100% sure as to his identity, however a positive id was eventually given, of course we know now that this was wrong. Also it took too long for so19 officers to be scrambled therefore the opportunity to stop him earlier was lost. The operation was a cock up, it had been put in place in the early hours of the morning, however people have to realise what was happening in London at the time, if these events had been taking place in Dublin, I wounder what the opinion would be?

The met have apologised numerous times. The acting commissioner has admitted that terrible mistakes were made by his force and that they have to take full responsibility.

I don't think identity was ever confirmed, in fact 3 surveillance officers said that they did NOT believe the man they were following was the suspect.

Padraig Mor

OPENROAD wrote: »

You make it sound that it was a computer game that was been played and that the police should have paused things, whatever about the cock up in the operation, can people not understand that the so19 officers believed they were dealing with a suicide bomber, as soon as he entered the tube station his faith was sadly sealed, I would assume that when you beleive you are dealing with a suicide bomber "Hi there, Police. Identify yourself" does not apply". I would assume that to detonate a bomb would take a second.

What part of "he was already restrained by police" do you not understand?

OPENROAD

MagicMarker wrote: »

But the intelligence wasn't correct, it wasn't even intelligence at the time. They didn't know, he was never confirmed as the suspect they were looking for.

In the same position, I hope I'd follow protocol, I'd identify myself as a police officer. They did nothing, they followed him onto the train, he was not acting aggressive, they had restrained him when he was shot in the face. What part of that is acting affirmatively?

It's called jumping the gun. Something armed, trained police shouldn't do when there are doubts to your own intelligence.

It was intelligence, have you not followed the case?They didn't just pick an adress in London aand decide to kill someone. He was eventually confimed as the suspect, however they got the identity wrong , we know that now.

What do you think the proticol is with dealing with a suicide bomber when he is on a tube train, when 24 hours earlier you belive the same person has tried to detonate a bomb on a tube train and failed.

MagicMarker

OPENROAD wrote: »

It was intelligence, have you not followed the case?They didn't just pick an adress in London aand decide to kill someone. He was eventually confimed as the suspect, however they got the identity wrong , we know that now.

What do you think the proticol is with dealing with a suicide bomber when he is on a tube train, when 24 hours earlier you belive the same person has tried to detonate a bomb on a tube train and failed.

Like I said, I don't believe he was ever identified, 3 surveillance officers said they did not believe him to be the suspect.

He was restrained when he was shot, and the address was linked because of a gym card found at the failed bomb attacks the previous day. Hardly concrete evidence, they were following a lead and the reason to be at the address was to stop anyone leaving to rule them in or out of being a terror suspect, not to let them enter a tube station and board a train.

OPENROAD

Padraig Mor wrote: »

What part of "he was already restrained by police" do you not understand?

My understanding was that he was shot while being restrained.


Just to clarify imo the whole operation was cock up and they did **** up and they have lots of lessons to learn particularly from the operations centre point of view where comunication was very very poor. From what I have seen the police have accepted that they ****ed up big time, apologised numerous times. I think possibly the focus should be on the operations rather than the so19 officers. Having said all of the above, circmstances in London at the time were such and events were moving very quickly,Of course this is of no comfort to his family whose lives are destroyed forever. I do wonder if these events were happening in Dublin, how would people feel?

OPENROAD

MagicMarker wrote: »

Like I said, I don't believe he was ever identified, 3 surveillance officers said they did not believe him to be the suspect.

He was restrained when he was shot, and the address was linked because of a gym card found at the failed bomb attacks the previous day. Hardly concrete evidence, they were following a lead and the reason to be at the address was to stop anyone leaving to rule them in or out of being a terror suspect, not to let them enter a tube station and board a train.

As you will know the operation was very very rushed, everything was fast moving, and yes he should have been stopped, the only people who are trained to deal with suicide bombers are so19 from what I have read. They were not in place at the apartments or at Stockwell tube station before he entered the station. They were playing catch up all the time

The police have accepted full responsibility and have admitted that they made serious errors. Yes maybe those overseeing the operation should be disiplined becuase they made mistakes which resulted in the death of an innocent person. But it was a very frightening time in London and the events less than 24 hours earlier played their part.

MagicMarker

OPENROAD wrote: »

As you will know the operation was very very rushed, everything was fast moving, and yes he should have been stopped, the only people who are trained to deal with suicide bombers are so19 from what I have read. They were not in place at the apartments or at Stockwell tube station before he entered the station. They were playing catch up all the time

The police have accepted full responsibility and have admitted that they made serious errors. Yes maybe those overseeing the operation should be disiplined becuase they made mistakes which resulted in the death of an innocent person. But it was a very frightening time in London and the events less than 24 hours earlier played their part.

If a member of the public, in those frightening times, suspected this guy of being a suicide bomber and decided to kill him to possibly save the lives of innocent people, what would happen now?

OPENROAD

MagicMarker wrote: »

If a member of the public, in those frightening times, suspected this guy of being a suicide bomber and decided to kill him to possibly save the lives of innocent people, what would happen now?

I assume you think that the police should be charged with manslaughter?

As I have already said my heart really does go out to his family and in particular his mother who must be a broken woman.