Man shot dead by police on Tube

[Paramonkey]

Someone should be charged.

To an extent I agree, I don’t think it should be the monkeys who were following correct procedure they were issued, instead we should focus on the organ grinders and the incompetent surveillance which was the real root cause of this tragedy..

Good intentions don't excuse people when they commit crimes.

Actually they do, it’s written in the law, therefore good intentions do excuse people when they commit crimes.

Are you suggesting that terrorists shouldn’t be dealt with by the police when they pose an immediate risk to the lives of the public?

[jose]

The two brothers arrested last week in an anti-terror raid on a house in east London, in which one was shot, were released without charge last night after police failed to find any link to an alleged biological terror plot.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/...794438,00.html

former Met Flying Squad commander John O'Connor told the BBC: "If you're going to mount an operation like this, you want to have enough evidence to charge people with a criminal conspiracy."

He said: "This seems to me to be very, very unprofessional the way that the police handled it."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5066846.stm

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Paramonkey To an extent I agree, I don’t think it should be the monkeys who were following correct procedure they were issued, instead we should focus on the organ grinders and the incompetent surveillance which was the real root cause of this tragedy..

The "organ grinders" can crank out all the "procedures" they want, that doesn't make them legal orders. As PatrickHenry pointed out in an earlier post, "just following orders" is not a legitimate defense for murder. The "organ grinders" should be fired, but the murderers are those that pulled the triggers.

Quote by: Paramonkey Actually they do, it’s written in the law, therefore good intentions do excuse people when they commit crimes.

Perhaps you could quote that part of the law where murder is condoned as long as "good intentions" are involved?

Quote by: Paramonkey Are you suggesting that terrorists shouldn’t be dealt with by the police when they pose an immediate risk to the lives of the public?

Oh yeah, we go right to the other extreme, the standard technique. Seems that we must either murder suspected terrorists, or they shouldn't be dealt with at all. I find it hard to believe that we can't come up with something between the two.

[Paramonkey]

"just following orders" is not a legitimate defense for murder.

It is when you are following a lawful order, or have been given a seemingly lawful order. Unless you are suggesting there should be no armed police? In that context next time there is a bloke with a gun walking down the road shooting people, there is nothing the police could do if you have your way, therefore far more innocent people will die as a result. :eek:

Perhaps you could quote that part of the law where murder is condoned as long as "good intentions" are involved?

Criminal law act 1967 s3
- lawful to prevent a crime providing the circumstances as he believed at the time are legitimate and reasonable force is used, i.e. that shooting them is the only way to prevent a serious crime or there is risk to the officers or public like you would get when preventing a suicide bomber blowing himself up.
- Self defence or defence of another or property, again provided reasonable force.
Common law
- Misadventure - for example a patient dying after lawful surgery and who is provided proper care.

There are also instances where murder is downgraded to manslaughter on account of intentions

Homicide act 1957 ss 2,3,4
- Extreme Provocation
- Diminished responsibility
- Suicide pacts

In fact the common law statue of murder emphasises the nature that the situation is only murder if the kill is unlawful.

Seems that we must either murder suspected terrorists, or they shouldn't be dealt with at all. I find it hard to believe that we can't come up with something between the two.

But you just said "good intentions don’t excuse people when they commit crimes" therefore using that logic that you yourself identified police officers wont be able to shoot terrorists, despite good intentions, for fear of being jailed for murder...

[jose]

If i saw an armed policeman and i thought he was going to illegally shoot me would i be within my rights to resist that, and use reasonable force to stop him?

[Paramonkey]

If i saw an armed policeman and i thought he was going to illegally shoot me would i be within my rights to resist that, and use reasonable force to stop him?

You have the right to resist an officer who is making an action which is unlawful.

[jose]

reasonable force is used, i.e. that shooting them is the only way to prevent a serious crime
so could i kill a copper dead to stop him from commiting a serious crime IE i thought, as he had a weapon, and innocent people have been shot before i thought he might kill me?

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Paramonkey It is when you are following a lawful order, or have been given a seemingly lawful order. Unless you are suggesting there should be no armed police? In that context next time there is a bloke with a gun walking down the road shooting people, there is nothing the police could do if you have your way, therefore far more innocent people will die as a result. :eek: Criminal law act 1967 s3 - lawful to prevent a crime providing the circumstances as he believed at the time are legitimate and reasonable force is used, i.e. that shooting them is the only way to prevent a serious crime or there is risk to the officers or public like you would get when preventing a suicide bomber blowing himself up. - Self defence or defence of another or property, again provided reasonable force. Common law - Misadventure - for example a patient dying after lawful surgery and who is provided proper care. There are also instances where murder is downgraded to manslaughter on account of intentions Homicide act 1957 ss 2,3,4 - Extreme Provocation - Diminished responsibility - Suicide pacts In fact the common law statue of murder emphasises the nature that the situation is only murder if the kill is unlawful.

As usual, you'd like to have us see only those parts of the law that tend to agree with you. In fact, this law seems to deal with self-defense, something outside the scope of this discussion since it was the officers themselves that precipitated the entire incident. Let's look a little further:

"The common law stands alongside s3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 which provides that:

A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.

Thus, reasonable force can be used in the prevention of any crime or in making an arrest to:

1. allow the defendant to defend himself from any form of attack so long as the attack is criminal.
2. prevent an attack on another person, e.g. in R v Rose (1884) 15 Cox 540, a young son shot dead his father to protect his mother from a serious assault, believing that this was the only practical way of defending her given his small physical size.
3. defend his property against criminal attack in the widest sense, i.e. it can be physical possessions like a watch or credit cards demanded by a mugger (where there would also be physical danger to the owner) or, at the other extreme, possession of land.

The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporates into English law Article 2 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms which defines the Right to Life as follows:

1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-de...in_English_law

Since there was no crime in progress, and there has been no evidence presented of a crime in planning, taking the suspect down and shooting him 8 or 10 or however many number of times is clearly not using "reasonable force". The shooters were in no way defending themselves, since there had been no display that they were ever in danger.

"Both the common law and statutory defences can be raised in respect of any crime with which the defendant is charged, and if successful will result in the defendant being completely acquitted. However, if a defendant uses excessive force this indicates that he acted unreasonably in the circumstances. There will therefore be no valid defence, and the defendant will be liable for the crime."
http://www.lawteacher.net/Criminal/G...%20Defence.htm

[Paramonkey]

so could i kill a copper dead to stop him from commiting a serious crime IE i thought, as he had a weapon, and innocent people have been shot before i thought he might kill me?

First, you arent allowed a gun in a public place.

Second you are leaving yourself wide open to malice intent, since the information you have at the time can be called into question, as how do you know the bloke shot is innocent? I believe you are trying to draw parrells with the De Menezes incident. There is a precise difference as the officers concerned had direct infromation, on top of that, they also have a right to carrry a gun and a percieved role as protectors, the prosecution would eat you alive, the odds being you would go down for murder due to the malice intent.

[Paramonkey]

As usual, you'd like to have us see only those parts of the law that tend to agree with you.

No, you asked for only certain parts which agreed with my statement, remember you said: "Perhaps you could quote that part of the law where murder is condoned as long as "good intentions" are involved?". Now you only asked for one side of the argument so I delivered it, so don’t try and get cocky and check the facts next time.

Since there was no crime in progress, and there has been no evidence presented of a crime in planning, taking the suspect down and shooting him 8 or 10 or however many number of times is clearly not using "reasonable force". The shooters were in no way defending themselves, since there had been no display that they were ever in danger

However, if a defendant uses excessive force this indicates that he acted unreasonably in the circumstances. There will therefore be no valid defence, and the defendant will be liable for the crime."

Reg. v. Williams (1983) has held that self defence is a legitimate defence if the individual believes that self-defence is justified, even if the situation transpires otherwise.
Beckford v. The Queen [1988] It was held that if the if the information at the time was justifiable for the police officer to shoot an individual, but it later transpires to be incorrect the officer is not guilty.

They were given a single piece of information that there was a suicide bomber entering the tube, this turned out to be incorrect however their actions are covered by the two cases marked out above. Its those who supplied the information and who allowed the situation to climax which need our attention.

They had the Actus reus but not the mens rea, its therefore not a crime. But unfortunately people are too short sighted to see that. I also doubt the numbers of people in this debate who actually care about De Menezes, who just want a pop at the Police....

[Zeebadee]

The police can't use the self-defense claim when it was they themselves that precipitated the incident. That would be the same as a burglar killing a homeowner because he felt threatened, believing that the homeowner might use force to protect himself. You can't claim self-defense when you attack someone, and then kill him because he might try and defend himself.

[Paramonkey]

The police can't use the self-defense claim when it was they themselves that precipitated the incident.

The police were in their capacity to protect the public and property, which is their primary duty they are obliged to counter the threat.

Other people's lives are in danger. They have to act accordingly so the claim is not primarily self defence, but defence of others and prevention of a crime with self-defence becoming a secondary factor in the incident which develops after their primary action to protect the public. They did not precipitate the incident they merely responded.

[Samildanach]

So lets extend that argument a bit.

A train is heading towards a station that is crowded with people.
the police are running to the train with automatic weapons and they believe there is a terrorist on board. As the police jump on the train and the train takes off the lights go out. Are the police justified in shooting everyone on the train because they have intelligence that there is a terrorist on the train and they cannot locate the terrorist through any other means and they are approaching a crowded station?

[Paramonkey]

No. That would be murder as the kills would be unlawful as it’s not based on direct intelligence. The officers should seek identification methods, i.e. using their torches.

[ise]

Public Statement
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL: The Killing of Jean Charles de Menezes
6 September 2006

The next hearing of the inquest into the fatal shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes by officers of the Metropolitan Police Service on 22 July 2005 is scheduled for 7 September 2006 at Southwark Coroner’s Court, London. Her Majesty’s Coroner, John Sampson, will be likely to consider the future conduct of the inquest into Jean Charles de Menezes’ death. Amnesty International understands that the Crown Prosecution Service of England and Wales (CPS) has reportedly written to the Coroner and invited him to adjourn the inquest proceedings. The organization is extremely concerned that the CPS is seeking to block the immediate resumption and completion of the inquest. Amnesty International understands that the CPS will argue that the inquest should be postponed until the completion of the ongoing criminal proceedings against the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis for an offence under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 of failing to provide for the health, safety and welfare of Jean Charles de Menezes. As such, the ongoing criminal proceedings are not against Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, in his personal capacity, but will be a prosecution of the Office of Commissioner, as the deemed employer of the Metropolitan Police officers involved in the death of Jean Charles de Menezes. Amnesty International has recently written to the Director of Public Prosecutions expressing concern about the CPS’s reported intention to seek the postponement of the inquest, as well as asking for a detailed explanation of its reasons for doing so. The organization would oppose any such postponement on the grounds outlined below.

I wonder how long after Blair 1 (Tony, lap dog) is got rid of, will Blair 2 (Big Ian) last. My guess is that he will be part of the new brush sweeping clean.

[RickSp]

The fact that the Crown Prosecution Service wants to sweep things under the rug doesn't change the basic fact that Jean Charles de Menezes was shot 8 times in the head for the crime of being mistaken for an Arab. In a just world his death would be called murder.

[Nono]

This is a test for the rule of law.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Trotsky BBC NEWS | UK | Man shot dead by police on Tube Man shot dead on Tube, from eye-witness reports it sounds like an execution....there is speculation that the guy was a suicide bomber and was attempting to detonate while the two officers had him on the floor.

I thought the police don't carry guns in England? When did this change?

[Matt W]

Quote by: GHook93 I thought the police don't carry guns in England? When did this change?

There have always been armed police units about. We're not that impractical that we'd have the military dealing with cases that require an armed response. :rolleyes:

[GHook93]

Quote by: Matt W We're not that impractical that we'd have the military dealing with cases that require an armed response. :rolleyes:

What exactly do you mean by this? Are you trying to insult me? :confused: