Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Jean Charles de Menezes verdict
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 106 of 113 (432998)
11-09-2007 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Legend
11-09-2007 1:21 PM


Re: right or wrong - who decides?
Is that it...? Is that all? He 'carried out some additional enquiries' and now all is fine ?!
He says there isn't sufficient evidence. Did he even look for it? Where are the interviews with the officers' friends/colleagues/wives/neighbours ? Have they ever made some incidental comment about muslims/arabs/foreigners? Where is their case history? have they ever bungled any other operations, especially when arabs were involved? Where is the investigation into their lifestyle, club memberships, political affiliations, etc ?
Wow, so because he didn't detail ever part of his investigation in a short piece that I quoted from him...that demonstrates that they neglected to investigate this in proper fashion?
Have you read the IPCC report? It's about 170 pages long. The officers are not identified, rightfully (though some of the people in charge are identified). The kinds of things you refer to are generally a matter of record of the officers and some of the things would not count as sufficient evidence in a court to justify bringing a murder trial.
quote:
The commentators to whom we should pay most attention are the jury of ordinary Londoners who for a whole month carefully listened to all the evidence and came to a clear verdict. Very serious mistakes were made that could and should have been avoided. But we have to take the utmost care before singling out any individual for blame. Those with strong views about the case would do well to study the evidence with the care the jury did.
Sound words - it's a fascinating document if you get the time, and you really want to know what happened that day, the context surrounding it and so on and so forth, it is great. You can find it here.
After all, if juries are so objective and un-biased as you seem to think, then the officers would have nothing to fear, don't you think ?
But why waste the time and money for a court case where the evidence you bring up is as it is. Let's say you find this information, should it exist - and to assume so is just crass - then you have potentially uncovered a potential motive for the crime you are trying to prosecute the officers for.
OK, now, what does the evidence say? It says the two police officers involved in the shooting had good reason to suspect that De Menezes was going to imminently cause massive death and injury. That's all the evidence suggests. We know that it was reasonable force - given what the officers had been told what reasonable force would be by their superiors.
So. Erm. No case then. Just like the investigators concluded.
If one of the officers stood up in a public meeting and said 'I am going to kill the next Brazilian I can'...then I might be more persuaded - but still it wouldn't quite add up to being equal to the Martin case.
I don't think, incidentally, that juries are objective and unbiased. I have no idea where you got that from.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Legend, posted 11-09-2007 1:21 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Legend, posted 11-09-2007 2:56 PM Modulous has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5005 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 107 of 113 (433012)
11-09-2007 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Modulous
11-09-2007 1:54 PM


Re: right or wrong - who decides?
Modulous writes:
Have you read the IPCC report? It's about 170 pages long. The officers are not identified, rightfully (though some of the people in charge are identified). The kinds of things you refer to are generally a matter of record of the officers and some of the things would not count as sufficient evidence in a court to justify bringing a murder trial.
I haven't read the report yet but I will. I take it that all the lines of enquiry I mentioned were followed ? Or did they just actually examined just what happened that day, without looking for prejudicial circumstancial evidence, like they did in the Tony Martin case ?
Tony Martin's bizarre lifestyle and views were used by the prosecution to undermine his self-defense plea and portray him as a psychopathic killer out for vengeance. it's only fair that a similar argument is allowed to be put forward in the DeMenezes case.
I undestand that the DeMenezes jury went through the presented evidence. It's just a shame that it wasn't a murder or manslaughter prosecution, like in the Tony Martin case. In both cases a young man was brutally killed, you know.
After all, we wouldn't want to encourage vigilantes going around killing dark-skinned people with big jackets, as you think would happen if they didn't prosecute people who shot perceived threats (Message 103)?
Modulous writes:
But why waste the time and money for a court case where the evidence you bring up is as it is.
Because they wasted the time and money for a court case where part of the evidence was like I described, i.e. what Martin's views on burglars was, what he did to his brother and other circumstancial trivia that help prejudice the jury and distract from the main point, which is that he was confronted by two intruders at night in his house!
Also, you seem to believe that shooting a held-down man seven times in the face is *not* unreasonable force. Is this correct ?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Modulous, posted 11-09-2007 1:54 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Modulous, posted 11-09-2007 3:39 PM Legend has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 108 of 113 (433026)
11-09-2007 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Legend
11-09-2007 2:56 PM


Re: right or wrong - who decides?
I haven't read the report yet but I will. I take it that all the lines of enquiry I mentioned were followed ?
Most of those details aren't necessary to establish evidence of murder.
Or did they just actually examined just what happened that day, without looking for prejudicial circumstancial evidence, like they did in the Tony Martin case ?
A stated intent to murder is not prejudicial circumstantial evidence. There was reason to suspect that lethal force was not reasonable and there was reason to suspect that Mr Martin was not acting purely in self defence. The latter reason is that he was not surprised and was forced to make a snap decision as he claimed and the former reason was that he fired three times, one time at a person who was bending over and one time at an already injured person fleeing through a window.
That called for a trial.
If you want to speculate that maybe the police had stated an intention to kill Brazilians, but an exhaustive search into all the witnesses that had ever met the officer was never carried out - then go right ahead. But it's just speculation, and it's pretty unfair too. Mr Martin was well known in the community, and for declaring violent, murderous intentions in the public sphere. If the officers were likewise renowned - then I agree that should have been investigated. There is no evidence that this is the case.
Tony Martin's bizarre lifestyle and views were used by the prosecution to undermine his self-defense plea and portray him as a psychopathic killer out for vengeance.
The fact that he declared he would kill burglars because the police weren't helping him and the fact that he had shot at people previously in a fashion that warranted him losing his licence to own a firearm was brought up. What other elements of his lifestyle were brought up at trial , exactly? The prosecution didn't go for psychopathic, since Mr Martin did not seem insane. They went for 'angry and vengeful at burglars'.
I undestand that the DeMenezes jury went through the presented evidence. It's just a shame that it wasn't a murder or manslaughter prosecution, like in the Tony Martin case. In both cases a young man was brutally killed, you know.
I don't see the merit in bringing a trial forward when the prosecution has no evidence. Do you honestly think that would make sense? Once again:
"Your honour, we accuse the defendant of committing murder. He has admitted he has killed with intent, but we submit...erm that it wasn't self defence based on speculation and hearsay in the media."
What grounds would they have for a murder trial?
After all, we wouldn't want to encourage vigilantes going around killing dark-skinned people with big jackets, as you think would happen if they didn't prosecute people who shot perceived threats
No we wouldn't. This situation is clearly not vigilante.
quote:
On arrival at STOCKWELL, CO19 went to State Red, authorising a firearms intervention, following an order from the DSO to stop the man from entering the station and tube train.
Because they wasted the time and money for a court case where part of the evidence was like I described, i.e. what Martin's views on burglars was, what he did to his brother and other circumstancial trivia that help prejudice the jury and distract from the main point, which is that he was confronted by two intruders at night in his house!
Except that he wasn't confronted by the intruders, he waited for them, and confronted them himself. That was the main point. One has to wonder why the defence team didn't bring up 'circumstantial trivia' as part of the appeal. However, according to the BBC, the incident with his brother was not presented to the jury - so I'm keen to see your source.
quote:
Jurors were not told that Tony Martin had a history of misbehaviour with guns dating back more than 20 years.
Neither did they know that police found a sawn-off shotgun hidden in Martin's garage...
Jurors were told how Martin had fired a shot at a car six years ago - an incident which led to his shotgun certificate being revoked.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Legend, posted 11-09-2007 2:56 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Legend, posted 11-11-2007 6:08 PM Modulous has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5005 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 109 of 113 (433396)
11-11-2007 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Modulous
11-09-2007 3:39 PM


Re: right or wrong - who decides?
A stated intent to murder is not prejudicial circumstantial evidence.
People say many things in different contexts. Some of them are hyperboles intended to make a point, some are pure bravado, some are generalisations. Even if Tony Martin did say that, that doesn't change the fact that he was confronted by two intruders, at night in his own home. Why should his claiming his intentions to defend himself and his property using what he thought to be reasonable force -as the law prescribes- be presented as evidence against him?
There was reason to suspect that lethal force was not reasonable and there was reason to suspect that Mr Martin was not acting purely in self defence.
Before I respond to that I have to ask (again): do you think the force used in the DeMenezes case was reasonable?
The latter reason is that he was not surprised and was forced to make a snap decision as he claimed....
how do you know he was not surprised? Being in fear of a possible burglary doesn't mean you're not surprised when it happens. The only way that he wouldn't be suprised would be if he had prior information that the burglars would strike that night or if he had enticed the burglars to his house. There is no evidence to indicate that either of these was the case, so I don't know how can anyone decide that Tony Martin wasn't suprised.
...the former reason was that he fired three times, one time at a person who was bending over and one time at an already injured person fleeing through a window.
Did he know that the person was bending over? And, if yes, was he bending over in order to pull his handgun/knife from his ankle holster?
Did he know that the person was fleeing through the window and not going to pick up his gun from the car or going to get the driver? Did he know the burglar was injured?
The thing is Modulous neither us, nor the jury, can answer those questions. It's just the burglars' word against Tony Martin's. The police, CPS and jury chose to take the burglars' word over his. That's what I mean by saying that the law should place the benefit of the doubt with the victim, not the aggressor.
Tony Martin claimed that he was blinded and deafened by the first shot and he just kept firing. He also claimed that he wasn't aware that he'd hit anyone. Both are very plausible explanations, under the circumstances of the incident. Why does anyone have to bring up the so-called 'evidence' that he said that burglars should be shot?
Say that you accidentally run someone over in your car. It turns out that he's one of the suspects in the London suicide-bomb-plot case. Should the fact that you might have once said that terrorists don't deserve to live in this country, be used as a pretext to accuse you of murder? Would that be just, fair or even relevant? I think the answer's no.
If you want to speculate that maybe the police had stated an intention to kill Brazilians, but an exhaustive search into all the witnesses that had ever met the officer was never carried out
I'm just asking if that line of inquiry was carried out, as happened in the Tony Martin case. I somehow doubt that it did.
What other elements of his lifestyle were brought up at trial , exactly?........the incident with his brother was not presented to the jury
well, the incident with his brother doesn't appear to have been presented, but other details about his lifestyle and his views were. The judgement (para 72) says as much:
quote:
They [jury] knew that Mr Martin was a very eccentric man indeed and that he was obsessed with the security of his home. A large part of the summing up was spent dealing with this evidence with the judge making clear the undoubted relevance of what Mr Martin believed the situation to be.
What does it matter if he was eccentric or that he was obsessed with the security of his house. At the end of the day if the security of his house hadn't been violated he wouldn't have to react. None of this changes the fact that two strangers forced their way onto his remote house at night!
Also, how can anyone say that his views on burglars and security could be relevant to the situation that particular night?! This is wrongly implying that because he said that burglars should be shot and he worried about security that he didn't experience the fear for his safety, as any of us (including the judge) would have?! How fucked up and judgemental is that?
Tony Martin, like just like Albert Camus' anti-hero, was judged and convicted on his 'strangeness', his being an outspoken outsider in a self-righteous society.
This [DeMenezes] situation is clearly not vigilante.
so you're happy to support that not prosecuting Tony Martin would encourage people to go around killing burglars, but you don't accept that not prosecuting the DeMenezes police would encourage people to go around killing suspected terrorists ?!
"M'Lawd, there was this dark-skinned man on the bus, probably Arab, looking well shifty and he was wearing this loose jumper, so I stabbed him in the eye. I mean, I thought he was going to blow us all up."
why the double standards?
What grounds would they have for a murder trial?
Like I said, if it emerges that one of them said something bad about Arabs or terrorists, there's your motive for a vengeance killing(latter) or racial hatred (former). The *fact* that they shot a held-down man 7 times in the face shows the 'unreasonable force' which could only derive from the emotionally-charged state of the shooter, which shows that this was a vengeance /racially-motivated execution.
"I put it to the court that officer A, although unsure that this was indeed the identified terrorist, gave the order to shoot Mr DeMenezes so as to send a clear message to all future terrorists"
Come on, any half-decent criminal lawyer would make a meal out of incidental details like the ones I mentioned. A really good one would have the jury believe that the introduction of a police state rests exclusively on their verdict.
I think we both know that if the police/CPS wanted to make an issue out of this case they could and would, they just chose not to.
Except that he [Tony Martin] wasn't confronted by the intruders, he waited for them, and confronted them himself. That was the main point.
Now you're just putting a spin on it! This implies that he was the one who initiated the encounter, which is blatantly false. *They* were the ones who broke in his house, so he couldn't have confronted them -they confronted him, . Unless you can show that he lured them into his house or that he knew they were coming that particular night, you can't say that he confronted them. He was confronted by them.
Edited by Legend, : for appearance

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Modulous, posted 11-09-2007 3:39 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Modulous, posted 11-12-2007 11:04 AM Legend has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 110 of 113 (433507)
11-12-2007 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Legend
11-11-2007 6:08 PM


IPCC cover-up?
Why should his claiming his intentions to defend himself and his property using what he thought to be reasonable force -as the law prescribes- be presented as evidence against him?
Because reasonable force cannot be decided by the individual - otherwise there would never be unreasonable force...that's what the law says. Stating an intention to kill people - rather than an intention to defend oneself with force if necessary...are two different things. One is fine, the other is threatening to murder.
Before I respond to that I have to ask (again): do you think the force used in the DeMenezes case was reasonable?
I'm farily sure I've answered this on a number of occasions. Lethal force was deemed reasonable.
how do you know he was not surprised?
Evidence.
Being in fear of a possible burglary doesn't mean you're not surprised when it happens.
Surprised as in 'suddenly startled by a bright light in the face'. That was Mr Martin's story. The one that the evidence falsified.
Did he know that the person was bending over? And, if yes, was he bending over in order to pull his handgun/knife from his ankle holster?
He was putting stuff in his bag - unaware of Mr Martin's presence. You know, like burglars often do. If Mr Martin had been startled by a light, we might not say he was comitting murder. If he saw the burglars and ambushed them - it was murder.
Did he know that the person was fleeing through the window and not going to pick up his gun from the car or going to get the driver? Did he know the burglar was injured?
According to his story, no. This story didn't hold up.
The thing is Modulous neither us, nor the jury, can answer those questions
Actually, that's exactly the kind of question the jury is asked to decide. Their job is to decide whether it was reasonable that Mr Martin could have thought his life was in danger, and whether his actions were justified by the fear he had.
It's just the burglars' word against Tony Martin's.
Of course it isn't. It's the burglars word (essentially supported by the evidence' against Mr Martin's word (essentially falsified by the evidence).
Tony Martin claimed that he was blinded and deafened by the first shot and he just kept firing.
Yes, and despite being blinded he managed to make three extremely accurate shots (according to where he said he was stood) each one even an expert marksman probably couldn't replicate due to the physics of the weapon and the resulting spread of the shot. The ballistics showed that these shots were so incredibally unlikely even for someone who spent time lining them up, they definitely weren't the work of a man blinded and deafened standing where he said he was stood.
Why does anyone have to bring up the so-called 'evidence' that he said that burglars should be shot?
Killed actually. Shot in the head. To establish that Mr Martin had a stated intention to take the law into his own hands by executing thieves.
Say that you accidentally run someone over in your car. It turns out that he's one of the suspects in the London suicide-bomb-plot case. Should the fact that you might have once said that terrorists don't deserve to live in this country, be used as a pretext to accuse you of murder? Would that be just, fair or even relevant? I think the answer's no.
No it wouldn't be relevant. Unless I knew he was a terrorist, and it could be showed that I drove off road to get to him, rather than accidentally hit him in the middle of the road after the sun glared in my eyes.
I'm just asking if that line of inquiry was carried out, as happened in the Tony Martin case. I somehow doubt that it did.
The police/IPCC don't generally go around asking everyone in the world whether any threats were made - this kind of information is generally offered during the normal course of the investigation.
well, the incident with his brother doesn't appear to have been presented, but other details about his lifestyle and his views were. The judgement (para 72) says as much:
*snip*
What does it matter if he was eccentric or that he was obsessed with the security of his house. At the end of the day if the security of his house hadn't been violated he wouldn't have to react. None of this changes the fact that two strangers forced their way onto his remote house at night!
The idea was that because he was eccentric and obsessed with security, that he therefore did feel a threat to his life and therefore was reasonable in using lethal force was used in his defence. Read the entire paragraph:
quote:
While we recognise Dr Joseph's evidence could be said to fall within the admissibility test set out by Lawton LJ in Turner above on the issue of self defence in this case we do not consider it would have advanced the defence of self defence. While it is true that the jury were unaware of Dr Joseph's diagnosis that Mr Martin suffered from a paranoid personality disorder and so consequently might have perceived a greater danger to his physical safety than an average person in his situation, they did have the evidence of Mr Martin himself (on which Dr Joseph based his diagnosis) including that Mr Martin was terrified for his life. They knew that Mr Martin was a very eccentric man indeed and that he was obsessed with the security of his home. A large part of the summing up was spent dealing with this evidence with the judge making clear the undoubted relevance of what Mr Martin believed the situation to be. The Jury could have been in no doubt but that their judgment of Mr Martin's actions had to be made by placing themselves in Mr Martin's shoes. In our judgment had that part of Dr Joseph's opinion on this aspect of the case been before the jury it would not have affected their decision and its omission does not render his conviction unsafe.
Also, how can anyone say that his views on burglars and security could be relevant to the situation that particular night?! This is wrongly implying that because he said that burglars should be shot and he worried about security that he didn't experience the fear for his safety, as any of us (including the judge) would have?! How fucked up and judgemental is that?
If you state you are going to kill someone who breaks into your house, and then you kill them - there is reason to suspect not all is above board. If the forensic evidence shows that your story is a load of lies...
Tony Martin, like just like Albert Camus' anti-hero, was judged and convicted on his 'strangeness', his being an outspoken outsider in a self-righteous society.
Tony Martin wasn't judged and convicted on his 'strangeness', just the fact that he had spoke of killing thieves, that he had recklessly used lethal force in the past, that he was lying about what happened in the house, and that he shot to kill people where doing so would be considered unreasonable by most people.
so you're happy to support that not prosecuting Tony Martin would encourage people to go around killing burglars, but you don't accept that not prosecuting the DeMenezes police would encourage people to go around killing suspected terrorists ?!
I don't think not prosecuting him would encourage people to kill burglars. Likewise, not prosecuting the police doesn't inherently encourage people to go around killing suspected terrorists.
"M'Lawd, there was this dark-skinned man on the bus, probably Arab, looking well shifty and he was wearing this loose jumper, so I stabbed him in the eye. I mean, I thought he was going to blow us all up."
why the double standards?
No double standards. Stabbing an Arab in the eye for looking shifty is different than armed officers being given clearance to use lethal force by their superiors, and being advised that the man they are pursuing must be stopped and that yesterday he tried to blow himself up on the underground.
Like I said, if it emerges that one of them said something bad about Arabs or terrorists, there's your motive for a vengeance killing(latter) or racial hatred (former). The *fact* that they shot a held-down man 7 times in the face shows the 'unreasonable force' which could only derive from the emotionally-charged state of the shooter, which shows that this was a vengeance /racially-motivated execution.
'If' might be a small word, but it's an important one. You are basically implying that the IPCC either didn't investigate properly (based on what? Your uninformed opinion?) or that they deliberately suppressed information that would have potentially secured a conviction (based on what?). In short, in order to prop up your conspiracy theory you need more conspiracy theories. Colour me unimpressed. Show me the beef.
"I put it to the court that officer A, although unsure that this was indeed the identified terrorist, gave the order to shoot Mr DeMenezes so as to send a clear message to all future terrorists"
Come on, any half-decent criminal lawyer would make a meal out of incidental details like the ones I mentioned. A really good one would have the jury believe that the introduction of a police state rests exclusively on their verdict.
I think we both know that if the police/CPS wanted to make an issue out of this case they could and would, they just chose not to.
Evidence is required to support a claim such as this, and none was forthcoming. The evidence strongly supported that they were acting as per what they thought they were being asked to do. You have read the report now haven't you?
Now you're just putting a spin on it! This implies that he was the one who initiated the encounter, which is blatantly false. *They* were the ones who broke in his house, so he couldn't have confronted them -they confronted him, . Unless you can show that he lured them into his house or that he knew they were coming that particular night, you can't say that he confronted them. He was confronted by them.
It was Mr Martin that was shown to be putting the spin on things by the physical evidence. Sorry about that, but there you go. It is possible to confront people that break into your house, just as it is possible for them to confront you. The evidence shows that the thieves had not confronted Mr Martin and that he confronted the thieves with an illegally held pump action shotgun. There is far more reason to suspect that the police officers acted out of a genuine concern for public and personal safety than there is to believe Mr Tony Martin acted out of self defence.
Edited by Modulous, : changed subtitle

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Legend, posted 11-11-2007 6:08 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Legend, posted 11-15-2007 7:22 PM Modulous has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5005 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 111 of 113 (434430)
11-15-2007 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Modulous
11-12-2007 11:04 AM


No conspiracy, just good ol' 'looking after our own'
Legend writes:
Before I respond to that I have to ask (again): do you think the force used in the DeMenezes case was reasonable?
Modulous writes:
I'm farily sure I've answered this on a number of occasions. Lethal force was deemed reasonable.
Yes I know it was, but that's not what I'm asking. Do *you* find the force used in the DeMenezes case reasonable?
Legend writes:
how do you know he was not surprised?
Modulous writes:
Evidence.
You're expecting me to prove a negative? Like I keep saying, the benefit of the doubt should be with the householder.
Modulous writes:
Surprised as in 'suddenly startled by a bright light in the face'. That was Mr Martin's story. The one that the evidence falsified.
I'm talking about surprise as in 'someone's breaking the window of my house'. Which the evidence clearly shows happened.
Modulous writes:
He was putting stuff in his bag - unaware of Mr Martin's presence. You know, like burglars often do.
Or he could have been looking for something to kill Mr Martin with. You know, like burglars often do.
Modulous writes:
It's the burglars word (essentially supported by the evidence' against Mr Martin's word (essentially falsified by the evidence).
All the evidence shows is that it's unlikely that Tony Martin fired the shots from where he said he did. The evidence doesn't and cannot show what Tony Martin felt when he was firing those shots. As the evidence also clearly shows that these men forced their way into his home at night, there is no reason to pre-suppose that Martin wasn't frightened and confused like he said he was. Like you, I or anyone else would be.
Modulous writes:
The ballistics showed that these shots were so incredibally unlikely even for someone who spent time lining them up, they definitely weren't the work of a man blinded and deafened standing where he said he was stood.
So...a middle aged farmer with a shotgun, who has no military or other specialised training, makes three extremely accurate shots in the dark of the night, that even an expert would have problems replicating and therefore it's concluded that he was intent to kill ?!
Can't you even see how absurd this reasoning is? If something is so improbable as to be extremely (un)lucky, guess what? it almost certainly is!
Using the same flawed reasoning you should also be supporting the notion that because the origin of life is so extremely unlikely then there must be a Creator!
quote:
Say that you accidentally run someone over in your car. It turns out that he's one of the suspects in the London suicide-bomb-plot case. Should the fact that you might have once said that terrorists don't deserve to live in this country, be used as a pretext to accuse you of murder? Would that be just, fair or even relevant? I think the answer's no.
Modulous writes:
No it wouldn't be relevant. Unless I knew he was a terrorist, and it could be showed that I drove off road to get to him, rather than accidentally hit him in the middle of the road after the sun glared in my eyes.

Exactly. To you he would just be a careless pedestrian who walked out in front of your car. You didn't make him walk out in front of your car, but he did. You could have seen him a bit earlier but the sun was glaring in your eyes, so you didn't. But someone who finds your driving maybe a bit too fast or whose car you may have chipped while reverse-parking remembers what you said in passing about terrorists that night down the pub. All of a sudden you're accused of waiting for the terrorist to cross the road before driving over him. After all there's no way to prove you didn't. And the evidence shows that your car was driving at over the 30mph speed limit, a speed that you well know -thanks to the endless media bombardment- results in an increased fatality rate. The evidence also shows that you left it too late to break. So there you have it, a simple accident turned into a murder conviction for you. It would be totally unjust, nothing but a witch-hunt, don't you agree?
Modulous writes:
You are basically implying that the IPCC either didn't investigate properly (based on what? Your uninformed opinion?)..
Based on our police/judicial's rich and colourful history of miscarriages of justice. Don't make me get out the list! (...the Guildford Four anyone ?)
Modulous writes:
...or that they deliberately suppressed information that would have potentially secured a conviction (based on what?).
Based on the well-documented tendency to protect their own. Suffice to mention the simple example of conviction rates for speeding offences. For police officers this is about twenty times lower than for us common plebs.
Modulous writes:
In short, in order to prop up your conspiracy theory you need more conspiracy theories. Colour me unimpressed. Show me the beef.
There's no conspiracy here, just the very human tendency to 'look after our own' and pick on those who are 'different'. Like I said we have a long history of cases in this country which show the police doing exactly that. I hope you don't make me present them all, I don't think this web site could cope with the volume.

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Modulous, posted 11-12-2007 11:04 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Modulous, posted 11-16-2007 10:47 AM Legend has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 112 of 113 (434560)
11-16-2007 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Legend
11-15-2007 7:22 PM


Re: No conspiracy, just good ol' 'looking after our own'
Yes I know it was, but that's not what I'm asking. Do *you* find the
force used in the DeMenezes case reasonable?
Yes.
You're expecting me to prove a negative?
I was making no demands, just answering your question.
I'm talking about surprise as in 'someone's breaking the window of my
house'. Which the evidence clearly shows happened.
Mr Martin realized that it wouldn't be reasonable to shoot at people
without warning based on that level of surprise. That's why he lied about
what happened. If he shot people just because they broke into his house,
that is unreasonable force.
Or he could have been looking for something to kill Mr Martin with. You
know, like burglars often do.
Evidence? But more seriously - Mr Martin was adamant that this wasn't what
happened. He knew that his position wasn't reasonable if he said he shot
someone without warning who wasn't making any overt threatening moves.
That's why he said he couldn't see them, and that was what caused him to
feel threatened. If that was the case, I might be inclined to have
sympathy for him, but that wasn't what happened.
All the evidence shows is that it's unlikely that Tony Martin fired the
shots from where he said he did. The evidence doesn't and cannot show what
Tony Martin felt when he was firing those shots.
No, the jury has to try and decide that. They decided that Mr Martin
wasn't blinded nor felt in imminent threat and that unwarned firing of a
firearm was done in vengeance and that firing at a wounded person as they
left (Mr Martin, not being blinded, could see the person was wounded at
fleeing) compounded this theory.
As the evidence also clearly shows that these men forced their way
into his home at night, there is no reason to pre-suppose that Martin
wasn't frightened and confused like he said he was. Like you, I or anyone
else would be.
Nobody is disputing he might have been scared, the dispute is the level of
fear he felt, and whether he was angry at being made to feel scared so
decided to engage in a little punitive behaviour. The judge made it
perfectly clear that what Mr Martin perceived to be the case was of utmost
importance.
So...a middle aged farmer with a shotgun, who has no military or other
specialised training, makes three extremely accurate shots in the dark of
the night, that even an expert would have problems replicating and
therefore it's concluded that he was intent to kill ?!
No - it was concluded that he didn't make the shots as he described and
that the shots were fired from somewhere else, and that this changes the
scenario in such a fashion as to warrant a possible conviction for murder.
Can't you even see how absurd this reasoning is? If something is so
improbable as to be extremely (un)lucky, guess what? it almost certainly
is!
Using the same flawed reasoning you should also be supporting the notion
that because the origin of life is so extremely unlikely then there must be
a Creator!
I'd support that if it could be shown that the origin of life was extremely
unlikely. I have no reason to suspect that is the case though. If it
turns out that it was impossible for a guy on the grassy knoll to have
fired any weapon to kill Kennedy, we reject the grassy knoll hypothesis.
If it turns out that a pump-action shot gun cannot fire through a 1 foot
hole 5 feet away without causing damage to the surroundings due to the
spread of shot, then we conclude that somebody didn't fire three
consecutive shots through said hole whilst blinded by a flashlight if we
can see that no shot hit the sides of the hole.
To you he would just be a careless pedestrian who walked out in front
of your car. You didn't make him walk out in front of your car, but he did.
You could have seen him a bit earlier but the sun was glaring in your eyes,
so you didn't. But someone who finds your driving maybe a bit too fast or
whose car you may have chipped while reverse-parking remembers what you
said in passing about terrorists that night down the pub. All of a sudden
you're accused of waiting for the terrorist to cross the road before
driving over him. After all there's no way to prove you didn't. And the
evidence shows that your car was driving at over the 30mph speed limit, a
speed that you well know -thanks to the endless media bombardment- results
in an increased fatality rate. The evidence also shows that you left it too
late to break. So there you have it, a simple accident turned into a murder
conviction for you. It would be totally unjust, nothing but a witch-hunt,
don't you agree?
Yes, that would be unjust. That doesn't mirror Mr Martin's case though, so
it seems irrelevant.
Let's say that I ran over two terrorists outside a club. I had told the
police that terrorists hang out there, but they hadn't stopped it. I run
over the terrorists and tell them that I was on my way home from work and
the sun blinded me. Evidence showed that I had actually left the road to
hit one of them, then I swerved, hit the second one, swerved again and hit
the second one a second time as he was fleeing from my car. The police
asked me what had happened and I deny that I knew I hit any of them. The
police find out , that the club wasn't on the way home from my work, that I
had stated in a public meeting that I intended to kill the next terrorists
I encounter, that I had to drive through a sequence of ballards to get
through (that an expert driver would be unlikely to perform in best
conditions) whilst 'blinded by the sun and terrified', and there was tyre
marks that indicated I had been stationary on the roadside and suddenly
accelarated. Then...there might be cause to have a trial.
Based on our police/judicial's rich and colourful history of
miscarriages of justice. Don't make me get out the list! (...the Guildford
Four anyone ?)
So because there have been injustices in the past, that is evidence that
the IPCC didn't investigate this case correctly? I'm not sure I follow.
However, if you can show me a study which can give a reasonable estimate
for the number of times the IPCC has not investigated a case properly, that
might work. This is as close as you've got to demonstrating some actual
evidence and I'm keen to see it.
Based on the well-documented tendency to protect their own. Suffice to
mention the simple example of conviction rates for speeding offences. For
police officers this is about twenty times lower than for us common
plebs.
I don't think speeding is a particularly fair comparison. How about
violent crime being investigated by the IPCC?
There's no conspiracy here, just the very human tendency to 'look after
our own' and pick on those who are 'different'. Like I said we have a long
history of cases in this country which show the police doing exactly that.
I hope you don't make me present them all, I don't think this web site
could cope with the volume.
Yes, the conspiracy I referred to was that the IPCC are looking after the
police, which of course is not what they are there for...thus a conspiracy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Legend, posted 11-15-2007 7:22 PM Legend has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5005 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 113 of 113 (487680)
11-03-2008 10:10 AM


Latest inquest developments
well, what do you know? As the facts begin to emerge, it turns out that the police who shot De Menezes did indeed use excessive and unreasonable force to counter what they perceived as a threat. Even worse, it's now obvious that the policemen came up with a pack of lies trying to cover-up their incompetence. For example, it turns out that they didn't shout out any warnings, that De Menezes didn't move towards them, nor was he aggressive or suspicious in any way shape or form. It's also been revealed that at least one piece of evidence has been intentionally changed by police in order to falsify what really happened.
It's also quite ironic, in a tragic way, that -according to one eye-witness- the one person acting nervously and suspiciously in the carriage at the time was the undercover police operative who mis-identified De Menezes just before he was shot.
It'll be interesting to now see if the policemen involved are going to face a criminal trial, like the rest of us would have.

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024