Jury in Inquest of de Menezes told what verdict to deliver!

[Blasphemous]

The correct course of action was patently not taken.

Why would they allow a suspected suicide bomber to actually get on the train?
Why was he not stopped well before?
Who in their right mind would tackle a suicide bomber face to face?

It just doesn't add up.

I agree trazor. And 'If' the purpose was, as Norcon says, just to go in and kill the 'terrorist' before he had chance to detonate the bomb he had in his 'imaginary bag', then why did they say they shouted a warning and why wasn't he approached LONG before he entered a bloody Tube FFS?

As for 'don't blame plod on the ground' esra-ptrap Oh no, lets not blame the poor police officers eh? I mean, they were only doing their duty weren't they? I don't want to hear a bunch of clap trap about how I or anyone else here would react given the same situation. Those officers put themselves forward for those sorts of duties. They don't 'have to do it'. It is NOT a requirement to be an Armed Response Officer. They are trained and put themselves forward. So why, if 'plod' acted on 'duff' info and carried out the killing '100% correctly', did they lie? Why did they fabricate the events leading up to and during the killing? I'm not suggesting for one minute that the officers 'on the ground' are solely to blame. I agree that there was a catalog of errors (surprise surprise ). There is more than one man with blood on his hands here. This whole episode stinks to high heaven.

I cannot see how ANYONE with any sense of justice and what is right, could conclude this case with a verdict of 'Lawful Killing' and/or 'An Open Verdict'. It absolutely sickens me.

 

[Softus]

There is more than one man with blood on his hands here. This whole episode stinks to high heaven.

This is an inquest - there is no remit to apportion blame.

I cannot see how ANYONE with any sense of justice and what is right, could conclude this case with a verdict of 'Lawful Killing' and/or 'An Open Verdict'. It absolutely sickens me.

This isn't a "case" - it's an inquest, not a trial.

It is a limited inquiry into the facts surrounding a death. It is not the job of the Coroner to blame anyone for the death, as a trial would do.

Given that there might yet be a trial, and/or a civil case, why do you want the inquest to reach beyond its scope?

 

[WDIK]

Given that there might yet be a trial, and/or a civil case, why do you want the inquest to reach beyond its scope?

well surely that has to happen, isnt it?

after all if it were east enders or corrie thats what would be happening?

the sun says this has to be the case!

hang on there must be a group on facebook commited to this outcome?

we the unelected mass outcry should be able to demand this as our right. till someone suggests another one

 

[Blasphemous]

This is an inquest - there is no remit to apportion blame.

And nor did I say there was any remit to apportion blame. I simply stated that there is more than one man with blood on his hands. I can make such a statement without implying that this inquest should apportion blame.

This isn't a "case" - it's an inquest, not a trial.

You are correct. I did mean inquest.

Given that there might yet be a trial, and/or a civil case, why do you want the inquest to reach beyond its scope?

I don't want the inquest to reach beyond its scope.

What I would like however, is for the jury to be given the opportunity to provide their own verdict without having their options narrowed down to what is realistically ONE! It is my opinion (and that's ALL it is, MY OPINION), that no one in their right mind would bring back a verdict of Lawful Killing in this inquest.

The lad was NOT lawfully killed. Therefore the only option left to them (unless they fail to reach a verdict, possibly due to the restrictions), is to reach an Open Verdict.

 

[Softus]

And nor did I say there was any remit to apportion blame. I simply stated that there is more than one man with blood on his hands. I can make such a statement without implying that this inquest should apportion blame.

I really don't see how you, or anyone, can.

How many interpretations are there of "blood on his hands"?

And how many of those interpretations don't involve blaming?

It is a limited inquiry into the facts surrounding a death. It is not the job of the Coroner to blame anyone for the death, as a trial would do.

Given that there might yet be a trial, and/or a civil case, why do you want the inquest to reach beyond its scope?

I don't want the inquest to reach beyond its scope. What I would like however, is for the jury to be given the opportunity to provide their own verdict without having their options narrowed down to what is realistically ONE! It is my opinion (and that's ALL it is, MY OPINION), that no one in their right mind would bring back a verdict of Lawful Killing in this inquest.

I don't see why not, given how the law stands, and the evidence that's been presented.

I still think you're getting confused between the pursuit of justice and the requirement of the coroner to establish the circumstances of the death.

The lad was NOT lawfully killed.

If a trial jury reached that conclusion then you would be correct, however this is an inquest, and I'm not aware of any trial verdict.

Therefore the only option left to them (unless they fail to reach a verdict, possibly due to the restrictions), is to reach an Open Verdict.

It (the jury) has three options, not one:-

1. Run out of time.
2. Lawful killing.
3. Open verdict.

 

[libby lou lou]

We slowly realising that that those supposed to be looking after you are bent?



For gods sake, see a suspect, pull him/her,

the police are above the law.

 

[Deluks]

Based on what the officers were told about the suspect they acted 100% correctly.

Focus should now be on why they were given duff information as that is the reason he's dead.

were they specifically told "this guy has a bomb and must be shot dead on sight" If that was the case, then they should be absolved of responsibility.

I thought that these elite cops were trained to identify a valid threat before pulling the trigger?
The video footage of the incident would make a good shoulda gone to Specsavers advert.

 

[Softus]

were they specifically told "this guy has a bomb and must be shot dead on sight" If that was the case, then they should be absolved of responsibility.

FFS, why is it so hard to understand that it isn't the goal of the inquest to establish "responsibility"?

I thought that these elite cops were trained to identify a valid threat before pulling the trigger?

Where did you read that?

 

[WDIK]

Where did you read that?

the daily mail

 

[Softus]

 

[Blasphemous]

And nor did I say there was any remit to apportion blame. I simply stated that there is more than one man with blood on his hands. I can make such a statement without implying that this inquest should apportion blame.

I really don't see how you, or anyone, can.

Don't you? Oh well.

How many interpretations are there of "blood on his hands"?

I don't know. You tell me.

And how many of those interpretations don't involve blaming?

I refer you to the answer I gave a moment ago.

It is a limited inquiry into the facts surrounding a death. It is not the job of the Coroner to blame anyone for the death, as a trial would do.

Given that there might yet be a trial, and/or a civil case, why do you want the inquest to reach beyond its scope?

I don't want the inquest to reach beyond its scope. What I would like however, is for the jury to be given the opportunity to provide their own verdict without having their options narrowed down to what is realistically ONE! It is my opinion (and that's ALL it is, MY OPINION), that no one in their right mind would bring back a verdict of Lawful Killing in this inquest.

I don't see why not, given how the law stands, and the evidence that's been presented.

Don't you? Ah well.

I still think you're getting confused between the pursuit of justice and the requirement of the coroner to establish the circumstances of the death.

Do you?

The lad was NOT lawfully killed.

If a trial jury reached that conclusion then you would be correct, however this is an inquest, and I'm not aware of any trial verdict.

Its my opinion.

Therefore the only option left to them (unless they fail to reach a verdict, possibly due to the restrictions), is to reach an Open Verdict.

It (the jury) has three options, not one:-

1. Run out of time.
2. Lawful killing.
3. Open verdict.

Really? How fascinating.

 

[Deluks]

I thought that these elite cops were trained to identify a valid threat before pulling the trigger?

Where did you read that?[/quote]

I didn't read it anywhere, I assumed it. I now realise how naive I've been in assuming that our armed police don't go round just shooting people without good reason. Thanks for clarifying my thoughts

 

[Blasphemous]

Where did you read that?

the daily mail

And how do you know that?

 

[WDIK]

a guy told me down the pub

 

[Blasphemous]

a guy told me down the pub

Really? Its amazing what you can learn down the pub isn't it? I tell my wife that all the time.