Re: No charges for Menezes officers [Archive] - London Student University Forums | Student Discussion, London Events, Classifieds, University News

hummingbird

17-07-2006, 08:56 PM

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:12:07 +0100 'TD'
posted this onto uk.politics.misc:

>"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>news:06fnb21s6366esoiqm6n9qlm16jtjvg12h@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 16:31:07 +0100 'Alex Heney'
>> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>
>>>On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:54:59 +0100, hummingbird
>>><RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:
>>>
><snip>
>>>>Afaik, the law has no provision which allows people to be excused of
>>>>murder on grounds that it resulted from a series of errors inadvertent
>>>>or otherwise
>>>
>>>Well you K wrong then. The law does have a provision that if the
>>>defendant held an honest belief that the victim presented an immediate
>>>threat, then he has a defence to the charge.
>>
>> And the collective factual evidence already in the public domain
>> clearly points to this not being relevant.
>
>AIUI you are wrong.

How so?

>> AIUI the gunman shot de Menezes because he had been ordered to,
>> not because he thought he presented an imminent threat.
>
>Please cite.

I'll re-phrase that: "he was ordered to stop de Menezes at all costs".
AIUI the last words from Cressida Dick to her gunmen before she lost
contact was "stop him at all costs". IIUC the gunman took that to be
an order to kill. After all, he's a paid gunman - that's what he does.

This really gets to the crux of the issue. The defence appears to be
that the police gunman *honestly believed* that de Menezes was an
imminent threat and had to be killed. But since de Menezes was doing
nothing that you or I wouldn't be doing and wasn't wearing a large
padded jacket with wires sticking out of it and wasn't running away
etc etc - the gunman could only have gotten his *honest belief* from
his commander 5 miles away.

IOW he killed a man based upon false information passed to him.
That is not a lawful defence.

He has to demonstrate how he arrived at his *honest belief* from
first hand information and I don't believe he could possibly do that.

--
"Blair's inner circle and its ferocious grab for power":
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1747772,00.html

"In the guise of fighting terrorism and maintaining public order,
Tony Blair's Government has quietly and systematically taken power
from Parliament and the British people. The author [Henry Porter]
charts a nine-year assault on civil liberties that reveals the
danger of trading freedom for security":
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1129827.ece

Chris X

17-07-2006, 08:56 PM

"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
news:c4qnb21s7fujeghl4javatjkvlep60kv4o@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:12:07 +0100 'TD'
> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>
>>"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>>news:06fnb21s6366esoiqm6n9qlm16jtjvg12h@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 16:31:07 +0100 'Alex Heney'
>>> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:54:59 +0100, hummingbird
>>>><RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:
>>>>
>><snip>
>>>>>Afaik, the law has no provision which allows people to be excused of
>>>>>murder on grounds that it resulted from a series of errors inadvertent
>>>>>or otherwise
>>>>
>>>>Well you K wrong then. The law does have a provision that if the
>>>>defendant held an honest belief that the victim presented an immediate
>>>>threat, then he has a defence to the charge.
>>>
>>> And the collective factual evidence already in the public domain
>>> clearly points to this not being relevant.
>>
>>AIUI you are wrong.
>
> How so?
>
>>> AIUI the gunman shot de Menezes because he had been ordered to,
>>> not because he thought he presented an imminent threat.
>>
>>Please cite.
>
> I'll re-phrase that: "he was ordered to stop de Menezes at all costs".
> AIUI the last words from Cressida Dick to her gunmen before she lost
> contact was "stop him at all costs". IIUC the gunman took that to be
> an order to kill. After all, he's a paid gunman - that's what he does.
>
> This really gets to the crux of the issue. The defence appears to be
> that the police gunman *honestly believed* that de Menezes was an
> imminent threat and had to be killed. But since de Menezes was doing
> nothing that you or I wouldn't be doing and wasn't wearing a large
> padded jacket with wires sticking out of it and wasn't running away
> etc etc - the gunman could only have gotten his *honest belief* from
> his commander 5 miles away.
>
> IOW he killed a man based upon false information passed to him.
> That is not a lawful defence.
>
> He has to demonstrate how he arrived at his *honest belief* from
> first hand information and I don't believe he could possibly do that.

Very good points !

chippy

17-07-2006, 09:24 PM

Chris X wrote:

>
> "hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
> news:c4qnb21s7fujeghl4javatjkvlep60kv4o@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:12:07 +0100 'TD'
> > posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
> >
> >>"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
> > > news:06fnb21s6366esoiqm6n9qlm16jtjvg12h@4ax.com...
> > > > On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 16:31:07 +0100 'Alex Heney'
> > > > posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
> > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:54:59 +0100, hummingbird
> >>>><RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > <snip>
> > > > > > Afaik, the law has no provision which allows people to be
> > > > > > excused of murder on grounds that it resulted from a series
> > > > > > of errors inadvertent or otherwise
> > > > >
> > > > > Well you K wrong then. The law does have a provision that if
> > > > > the defendant held an honest belief that the victim presented
> > > > > an immediate threat, then he has a defence to the charge.
> > > >
> > > > And the collective factual evidence already in the public domain
> > > > clearly points to this not being relevant.
> > >
> > > AIUI you are wrong.
> >
> > How so?
> >
> > > > AIUI the gunman shot de Menezes because he had been ordered to,
> > > > not because he thought he presented an imminent threat.
> > >
> > > Please cite.
> >
> > I'll re-phrase that: "he was ordered to stop de Menezes at all
> > costs". AIUI the last words from Cressida Dick to her gunmen
> > before she lost contact was "stop him at all costs". IIUC the
> > gunman took that to be an order to kill. After all, he's a paid
> > gunman - that's what he does.
> >
> > This really gets to the crux of the issue. The defence appears to be
> > that the police gunman *honestly believed* that de Menezes was an
> > imminent threat and had to be killed. But since de Menezes was doing
> > nothing that you or I wouldn't be doing and wasn't wearing a large
> > padded jacket with wires sticking out of it and wasn't running away
> > etc etc - the gunman could only have gotten his *honest belief* from
> > his commander 5 miles away.
> >
> > IOW he killed a man based upon false information passed to him.
> > That is not a lawful defence.
> >
> > He has to demonstrate how he arrived at his *honest belief* from
> > first hand information and I don't believe he could possibly do
> > that.
>
> Very good points !

And not relevant as to whether the CPS will prosecute.

--
wigwambam

17-07-2006, 09:26 PM

"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
news:c4qnb21s7fujeghl4javatjkvlep60kv4o@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:12:07 +0100 'TD'
> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>
>>"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>>news:06fnb21s6366esoiqm6n9qlm16jtjvg12h@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 16:31:07 +0100 'Alex Heney'
>>> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:54:59 +0100, hummingbird
>>>><RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:
>>>>
>><snip>
>>>>>Afaik, the law has no provision which allows people to be excused of
>>>>>murder on grounds that it resulted from a series of errors inadvertent
>>>>>or otherwise
>>>>
>>>>Well you K wrong then. The law does have a provision that if the
>>>>defendant held an honest belief that the victim presented an immediate
>>>>threat, then he has a defence to the charge.
>>>
>>> And the collective factual evidence already in the public domain
>>> clearly points to this not being relevant.
>>
>>AIUI you are wrong.
>
> How so?

There is no evidence in the public domain that I recall that could show the
firearms officers could not genuinely have an honest belief de Menezes was a
suicide bomber.

(by suicide bomber I mean someone on a suicide bombing mission)

>>> AIUI the gunman shot de Menezes because he had been ordered to,
>>> not because he thought he presented an imminent threat.
>>
>>Please cite.
>
> I'll re-phrase that: "he was ordered to stop de Menezes at all costs".
> AIUI the last words from Cressida Dick to her gunmen before she lost
> contact was "stop him at all costs". IIUC the gunman took that to be
> an order to kill. After all, he's a paid gunman - that's what he does.

Speculation.

> This really gets to the crux of the issue. The defence appears to be
> that the police gunman *honestly believed* that de Menezes was an
> imminent threat and had to be killed. But since de Menezes was doing
> nothing that you or I wouldn't be doing and wasn't wearing a large
> padded jacket with wires sticking out of it and wasn't running away
> etc etc - the gunman could only have gotten his *honest belief* from
> his commander 5 miles away.

Agreed.

> IOW he killed a man based upon false information passed to him.
> That is not a lawful defence.

Straw man: no-one AFAIK has claimed having false information is a defence.

> He has to demonstrate how he arrived at his *honest belief* from
> first hand information and I don't believe he could possibly do that.

No,

'In order to prosecute those officers, we would have to prove, beyond
reasonable doubt, that they did not honestly and genuinely hold those
beliefs. In fact, the evidence supports their claim that they genuinely
believed that Mr de Menezes was a suicide bomber and therefore, as we cannot
disprove that claim, we cannot prosecute them for murder or any other
related offence.'

<http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/pressreleases/146_06.html>

Something called the 'presumption of innocence'.

hummingbird

17-07-2006, 09:55 PM

On 17 Jul 2006 20:24:02 GMT 'chippy'
posted this onto uk.politics.misc:

>Chris X wrote:
>
>>
>> "hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>> news:c4qnb21s7fujeghl4javatjkvlep60kv4o@4ax.com...
>> > On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:12:07 +0100 'TD'
>> > posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>> >
>> >>"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>> > > news:06fnb21s6366esoiqm6n9qlm16jtjvg12h@4ax.com...
>> > > > On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 16:31:07 +0100 'Alex Heney'
>> > > > posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>> > > >
>> > > > > On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:54:59 +0100, hummingbird
>> >>>><RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > <snip>
>> > > > > > Afaik, the law has no provision which allows people to be
>> > > > > > excused of murder on grounds that it resulted from a series
>> > > > > > of errors inadvertent or otherwise
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Well you K wrong then. The law does have a provision that if
>> > > > > the defendant held an honest belief that the victim presented
>> > > > > an immediate threat, then he has a defence to the charge.
>> > > >
>> > > > And the collective factual evidence already in the public domain
>> > > > clearly points to this not being relevant.
>> > >
>> > > AIUI you are wrong.
>> >
>> > How so?
>> >
>> > > > AIUI the gunman shot de Menezes because he had been ordered to,
>> > > > not because he thought he presented an imminent threat.
>> > >
>> > > Please cite.
>> >
>> > I'll re-phrase that: "he was ordered to stop de Menezes at all
>> > costs". AIUI the last words from Cressida Dick to her gunmen
>> > before she lost contact was "stop him at all costs". IIUC the
>> > gunman took that to be an order to kill. After all, he's a paid
>> > gunman - that's what he does.
>> >
>> > This really gets to the crux of the issue. The defence appears to be
>> > that the police gunman *honestly believed* that de Menezes was an
>> > imminent threat and had to be killed. But since de Menezes was doing
>> > nothing that you or I wouldn't be doing and wasn't wearing a large
>> > padded jacket with wires sticking out of it and wasn't running away
>> > etc etc - the gunman could only have gotten his *honest belief* from
>> > his commander 5 miles away.
>> >
>> > IOW he killed a man based upon false information passed to him.
>> > That is not a lawful defence.
>> >
>> > He has to demonstrate how he arrived at his *honest belief* from
>> > first hand information and I don't believe he could possibly do
>> > that.
>>
>> Very good points !
>
>And not relevant as to whether the CPS will prosecute.

We know they will not prosecute, they said it today.
What we're doing is putting forward reasons why they are wrong.

--
"Blair's inner circle and its ferocious grab for power":
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1747772,00.html

"In the guise of fighting terrorism and maintaining public order,
Tony Blair's Government has quietly and systematically taken power
from Parliament and the British people. The author [Henry Porter]
charts a nine-year assault on civil liberties that reveals the
danger of trading freedom for security":
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1129827.ece

Rob

17-07-2006, 10:08 PM

TD wrote:
||| He has to demonstrate how he arrived at his *honest belief* from
||| first hand information and I don't believe he could possibly do
||| that.
||
|| No,
||
|| 'In order to prosecute those officers, we would have to prove, beyond
|| reasonable doubt, that they did not honestly and genuinely hold those
|| beliefs. In fact, the evidence supports their claim that they
|| genuinely believed that Mr de Menezes was a suicide bomber and
|| therefore, as we cannot disprove that claim, we cannot prosecute
|| them for murder or any other related offence.'
||
|| <http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/pressreleases/146_06.html>
||
|| Something called the 'presumption of innocence'.

Thank god for the presumption of innocence. So if I kill an unarmed burglar,
and claim an honest belief that my life was in danger, since this is
something that is impossible to disprove I won't be prosecuted? That's
reassuring to know.

--
Rob

hummingbird

17-07-2006, 10:10 PM

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:26:47 +0100 'TD'
posted this onto uk.politics.misc:

>"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>news:c4qnb21s7fujeghl4javatjkvlep60kv4o@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:12:07 +0100 'TD'
>> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>
>>>"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>>>news:06fnb21s6366esoiqm6n9qlm16jtjvg12h@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 16:31:07 +0100 'Alex Heney'
>>>> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:54:59 +0100, hummingbird
>>>>><RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>><snip>
>>>>>>Afaik, the law has no provision which allows people to be excused of
>>>>>>murder on grounds that it resulted from a series of errors inadvertent
>>>>>>or otherwise
>>>>>
>>>>>Well you K wrong then. The law does have a provision that if the
>>>>>defendant held an honest belief that the victim presented an immediate
>>>>>threat, then he has a defence to the charge.
>>>>
>>>> And the collective factual evidence already in the public domain
>>>> clearly points to this not being relevant.
>>>
>>>AIUI you are wrong.
>>
>> How so?
>
>There is no evidence in the public domain that I recall that could show the
>firearms officers could not genuinely have an honest belief de Menezes was a
>suicide bomber.

It's for the police gunman to demonstrate that he had an *honest
belief* that de Menezes posed an **imminent threat to himself or
others**, not the other way round. (also see below)

>(by suicide bomber I mean someone on a suicide bombing mission)

OK. But afaics he had no grounds to believe that from first hand
information.

>>>> AIUI the gunman shot de Menezes because he had been ordered to,
>>>> not because he thought he presented an imminent threat.
>>>
>>>Please cite.
>>
>> I'll re-phrase that: "he was ordered to stop de Menezes at all costs".
>> AIUI the last words from Cressida Dick to her gunmen before she lost
>> contact was "stop him at all costs". IIUC the gunman took that to be
>> an order to kill. After all, he's a paid gunman - that's what he does.
>
>Speculation.

What is? Are you suggesting that the gunman took it upon himself to
blast 8 bullets into somebody w/o senior officer authorisation?

>> This really gets to the crux of the issue. The defence appears to be
>> that the police gunman *honestly believed* that de Menezes was an
>> imminent threat and had to be killed. But since de Menezes was doing
>> nothing that you or I wouldn't be doing and wasn't wearing a large
>> padded jacket with wires sticking out of it and wasn't running away
>> etc etc - the gunman could only have gotten his *honest belief* from
>> his commander 5 miles away.
>
>Agreed.
>
>> IOW he killed a man based upon false information passed to him.
>> That is not a lawful defence.
>
>Straw man: no-one AFAIK has claimed having false information is a defence.

Not at all. What I'm saying is that his information was plainly false
but he accepted it and went ahead and killed an innocent man.

>> He has to demonstrate how he arrived at his *honest belief* from
>> first hand information and I don't believe he could possibly do that.
>
>No,
>
>'In order to prosecute those officers, we would have to prove, beyond
>reasonable doubt, that they did not honestly and genuinely hold those
>beliefs. In fact, the evidence supports their claim that they genuinely
>believed that Mr de Menezes was a suicide bomber and therefore, as we cannot
>disprove that claim, we cannot prosecute them for murder or any other
>related offence.'
>
><http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/pressreleases/146_06.html>
>
>Something called the 'presumption of innocence'.

IMV the CPS statement is extremely dishonest AIU the law...

When you kill someone it is you (not the prosecution) who have to
prove BRD that you held the *honest belief* that the other person
was an imminent threat. The law simply provides *honest belief* as
a defence but that doesn't mean the prosecution need to disprove it.

Otherwise every murderer would simply claim *honest belief* and walk
free because it's virtually impossible to disprove.

--
"Blair's inner circle and its ferocious grab for power":
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1747772,00.html

"In the guise of fighting terrorism and maintaining public order,
Tony Blair's Government has quietly and systematically taken power
from Parliament and the British people. The author [Henry Porter]
charts a nine-year assault on civil liberties that reveals the
danger of trading freedom for security":
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1129827.ece

Alex Heney

17-07-2006, 10:13 PM

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 20:56:22 +0100, hummingbird
<RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:12:07 +0100 'TD'
>posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>
>>"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>>news:06fnb21s6366esoiqm6n9qlm16jtjvg12h@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 16:31:07 +0100 'Alex Heney'
>>> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:54:59 +0100, hummingbird
>>>><RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:
>>>>
>><snip>
>>>>>Afaik, the law has no provision which allows people to be excused of
>>>>>murder on grounds that it resulted from a series of errors inadvertent
>>>>>or otherwise
>>>>
>>>>Well you K wrong then. The law does have a provision that if the
>>>>defendant held an honest belief that the victim presented an immediate
>>>>threat, then he has a defence to the charge.
>>>
>>> And the collective factual evidence already in the public domain
>>> clearly points to this not being relevant.
>>
>>AIUI you are wrong.
>
>How so?
>
>>> AIUI the gunman shot de Menezes because he had been ordered to,
>>> not because he thought he presented an imminent threat.
>>
>>Please cite.
>
>I'll re-phrase that: "he was ordered to stop de Menezes at all costs".
>AIUI the last words from Cressida Dick to her gunmen before she lost
>contact was "stop him at all costs". IIUC the gunman took that to be
>an order to kill. After all, he's a paid gunman - that's what he does.
>

This post by you is the first time I have seen anybody suggest the
words "at all costs" or anything similar.

>This really gets to the crux of the issue. The defence appears to be
>that the police gunman *honestly believed* that de Menezes was an
>imminent threat and had to be killed. But since de Menezes was doing
>nothing that you or I wouldn't be doing and wasn't wearing a large
>padded jacket with wires sticking out of it and wasn't running away
>etc etc - the gunman could only have gotten his *honest belief* from
>his commander 5 miles away.
>
>IOW he killed a man based upon false information passed to him.
>That is not a lawful defence.
>

Yes it is.

If that was sufficient to give him an honest belief, then that is a
defence to the charge of murder.

>He has to demonstrate how he arrived at his *honest belief* from
>first hand information and I don't believe he could possibly do that.

No he doesn't.

The *prosecution* have to demonstrate that he did not hold that honest
belief.

If he *can* show how he arrived at it, then that will make the
prosecution job impossible. Even where you don't think it was
reasonable for them to have arrived at that belief.

If he can't, it means they *may* be able to prove their case BRD.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Did you know that the word "gullible" is not in the dictionary?
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Alex Heney

17-07-2006, 10:15 PM

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 20:56:38 +0100, "Chris X"
<Chris_X2006@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>news:c4qnb21s7fujeghl4javatjkvlep60kv4o@4ax.com...
<snip>

>>
>> I'll re-phrase that: "he was ordered to stop de Menezes at all costs".
>> AIUI the last words from Cressida Dick to her gunmen before she lost
>> contact was "stop him at all costs". IIUC the gunman took that to be
>> an order to kill. After all, he's a paid gunman - that's what he does.
>>
>> This really gets to the crux of the issue. The defence appears to be
>> that the police gunman *honestly believed* that de Menezes was an
>> imminent threat and had to be killed. But since de Menezes was doing
>> nothing that you or I wouldn't be doing and wasn't wearing a large
>> padded jacket with wires sticking out of it and wasn't running away
>> etc etc - the gunman could only have gotten his *honest belief* from
>> his commander 5 miles away.
>>
>> IOW he killed a man based upon false information passed to him.
>> That is not a lawful defence.
>>
>> He has to demonstrate how he arrived at his *honest belief* from
>> first hand information and I don't believe he could possibly do that.
>
>Very good points !
>

Good points morally, perhaps.

But all wrong in law :-(
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
It's as easy as 3.14159265358979323846264338327950...
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Mike

17-07-2006, 10:16 PM

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:26:47 +0100, "TD" <tdefries@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> IOW he killed a man based upon false information passed to him.
>> That is not a lawful defence.
>
>Straw man: no-one AFAIK has claimed having false information is a defence.

Have I missed some sublety? I thought those arguing that the shooters
behaved properly were arguing precisely that: that possession of false
information caused an honest belief that the (false) information was
true and that the honest belief so formed is the only and sufficient
defence.

Mike.

--
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

17-07-2006, 10:32 PM

"Rob" <rsvptorob-usenetREMOVE@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Bq-dnXktga2fYSbZRVnyuw@bt.com...
> TD wrote:
> ||| He has to demonstrate how he arrived at his *honest belief* from
> ||| first hand information and I don't believe he could possibly do
> ||| that.
> ||
> || No,
> ||
> || 'In order to prosecute those officers, we would have to prove, beyond
> || reasonable doubt, that they did not honestly and genuinely hold those
> || beliefs. In fact, the evidence supports their claim that they
> || genuinely believed that Mr de Menezes was a suicide bomber and
> || therefore, as we cannot disprove that claim, we cannot prosecute
> || them for murder or any other related offence.'
> ||
> || <http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/pressreleases/146_06.html>
> ||
> || Something called the 'presumption of innocence'.
>
> Thank god for the presumption of innocence. So if I kill an unarmed
> burglar, and claim an honest belief that my life was in danger, since this
> is something that is impossible to disprove I won't be prosecuted? That's
> reassuring to know.

Non sequitur.

17-07-2006, 10:45 PM

"Mike" <mike@kempston.net> wrote in message
news:dbvnb2h1vnmkqkdi9io64rtc2qqvta5li4@news.kemps ton.net...
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:26:47 +0100, "TD" <tdefries@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> IOW he killed a man based upon false information passed to him.
>>> That is not a lawful defence.
>>
>>Straw man: no-one AFAIK has claimed having false information is a defence.
>
> Have I missed some sublety? I thought those arguing that the shooters
> behaved properly were arguing precisely that: that possession of false
> information caused an honest belief that the (false) information was
> true and that the honest belief so formed is the only and sufficient
> defence.

Shurely you have to show that the officer could not have genuinely believed
the information to be true... ...i.e. the truth value of the information
doesn't inherently matter.

Rob

17-07-2006, 11:02 PM

TD wrote:
|| "Rob" <rsvptorob-usenetREMOVE@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
|| news:Bq-dnXktga2fYSbZRVnyuw@bt.com...
||| TD wrote:
|||||| He has to demonstrate how he arrived at his *honest belief* from
|||||| first hand information and I don't believe he could possibly do
|||||| that.
|||||
||||| No,
|||||
||||| 'In order to prosecute those officers, we would have to prove,
||||| beyond reasonable doubt, that they did not honestly and genuinely
||||| hold those beliefs. In fact, the evidence supports their claim
||||| that they genuinely believed that Mr de Menezes was a suicide
||||| bomber and therefore, as we cannot disprove that claim, we cannot
||||| prosecute them for murder or any other related offence.'
|||||
||||| <http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/pressreleases/146_06.html>
|||||
||||| Something called the 'presumption of innocence'.
|||
||| Thank god for the presumption of innocence. So if I kill an unarmed
||| burglar, and claim an honest belief that my life was in danger,
||| since this is something that is impossible to disprove I won't be
||| prosecuted? That's reassuring to know.
||
|| Non sequitur.

How so? How would my honest belief differ from that of the shooters in this
case?

--
Rob

17-07-2006, 11:05 PM

"Rob" <rsvptorob-usenetREMOVE@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ksqdnY9FIZMDlSHZRVnyqQ@bt.com...
> TD wrote:
> || "Rob" <rsvptorob-usenetREMOVE@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> || news:Bq-dnXktga2fYSbZRVnyuw@bt.com...
> ||| TD wrote:
> |||||| He has to demonstrate how he arrived at his *honest belief* from
> |||||| first hand information and I don't believe he could possibly do
> |||||| that.
> |||||
> ||||| No,
> |||||
> ||||| 'In order to prosecute those officers, we would have to prove,
> ||||| beyond reasonable doubt, that they did not honestly and genuinely
> ||||| hold those beliefs. In fact, the evidence supports their claim
> ||||| that they genuinely believed that Mr de Menezes was a suicide
> ||||| bomber and therefore, as we cannot disprove that claim, we cannot
> ||||| prosecute them for murder or any other related offence.'
> |||||
> ||||| <http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/pressreleases/146_06.html>
> |||||
> ||||| Something called the 'presumption of innocence'.
> |||
> ||| Thank god for the presumption of innocence. So if I kill an unarmed
> ||| burglar, and claim an honest belief that my life was in danger,
> ||| since this is something that is impossible to disprove I won't be
> ||| prosecuted? That's reassuring to know.
> ||
> || Non sequitur.
>
> How so? How would my honest belief differ from that of the shooters in
> this case?

I'm not saying it does or doesn't. I'm arguing about CPS deciding to
prosecute or not:

'In order to prosecute Rob, we must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that he
did not honestly and genuinely hold the belief that his life was in danger.
In fact, the evidence does not support his claim that he genuinely believed
his life was in danger, and as we believe we can disprove his claim, we will
be prosecuting him for murder.'

Alex Heney

17-07-2006, 11:19 PM

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:55:23 +0100, hummingbird
<RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:

>On 17 Jul 2006 20:24:02 GMT 'chippy'
>posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
<snip>

>>> >
>>> > He has to demonstrate how he arrived at his *honest belief* from
>>> > first hand information and I don't believe he could possibly do
>>> > that.
>>>
>>> Very good points !
>>
>>And not relevant as to whether the CPS will prosecute.
>
>We know they will not prosecute, they said it today.
>What we're doing is putting forward reasons why they are wrong.

Unfortunately, the reasons you are putting forward, while good common
sense, and possibly morally correct, have no validity in law.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
It works better if you plug it in.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Alex Heney

17-07-2006, 11:20 PM

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 22:08:49 +0100, "Rob"
<rsvptorob-usenetREMOVE@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>TD wrote:
>||| He has to demonstrate how he arrived at his *honest belief* from
>||| first hand information and I don't believe he could possibly do
>||| that.
>||
>|| No,
>||
>|| 'In order to prosecute those officers, we would have to prove, beyond
>|| reasonable doubt, that they did not honestly and genuinely hold those
>|| beliefs. In fact, the evidence supports their claim that they
>|| genuinely believed that Mr de Menezes was a suicide bomber and
>|| therefore, as we cannot disprove that claim, we cannot prosecute
>|| them for murder or any other related offence.'
>||
>|| <http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/pressreleases/146_06.html>
>||
>|| Something called the 'presumption of innocence'.
>
>Thank god for the presumption of innocence. So if I kill an unarmed burglar,
>and claim an honest belief that my life was in danger, since this is
>something that is impossible to disprove I won't be prosecuted? That's
>reassuring to know.

Where do you get that idea from?
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
It works better if you plug it in.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Alex Heney

17-07-2006, 11:21 PM

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 23:02:42 +0100, "Rob"
<rsvptorob-usenetREMOVE@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>TD wrote:
>|| "Rob" <rsvptorob-usenetREMOVE@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>|| news:Bq-dnXktga2fYSbZRVnyuw@bt.com...
>||| TD wrote:
>|||||| He has to demonstrate how he arrived at his *honest belief* from
>|||||| first hand information and I don't believe he could possibly do
>|||||| that.
>|||||
>||||| No,
>|||||
>||||| 'In order to prosecute those officers, we would have to prove,
>||||| beyond reasonable doubt, that they did not honestly and genuinely
>||||| hold those beliefs. In fact, the evidence supports their claim
>||||| that they genuinely believed that Mr de Menezes was a suicide
>||||| bomber and therefore, as we cannot disprove that claim, we cannot
>||||| prosecute them for murder or any other related offence.'
>|||||
>||||| <http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/pressreleases/146_06.html>
>|||||
>||||| Something called the 'presumption of innocence'.
>|||
>||| Thank god for the presumption of innocence. So if I kill an unarmed
>||| burglar, and claim an honest belief that my life was in danger,
>||| since this is something that is impossible to disprove I won't be
>||| prosecuted? That's reassuring to know.
>||
>|| Non sequitur.
>
>How so? How would my honest belief differ from that of the shooters in this
>case?

There would not be evidence supporting the fact you really did hold
that belief.

"In fact, the evidence supports their claim that they genuinely
believed that Mr de Menezes was a suicide| bomber"

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Man who get hit by car, get that run down feeling
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

17-07-2006, 11:22 PM

"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
news:1bunb2tqe6f0ic026o6oc0l7i9qjfab3ec@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:26:47 +0100 'TD'
> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>
>>"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>>news:c4qnb21s7fujeghl4javatjkvlep60kv4o@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:12:07 +0100 'TD'
>>> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>>
>>>>"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:06fnb21s6366esoiqm6n9qlm16jtjvg12h@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 16:31:07 +0100 'Alex Heney'
>>>>> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:54:59 +0100, hummingbird
>>>>>><RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>>>>>Afaik, the law has no provision which allows people to be excused of
>>>>>>>murder on grounds that it resulted from a series of errors
>>>>>>>inadvertent
>>>>>>>or otherwise
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Well you K wrong then. The law does have a provision that if the
>>>>>>defendant held an honest belief that the victim presented an immediate
>>>>>>threat, then he has a defence to the charge.
>>>>>
>>>>> And the collective factual evidence already in the public domain
>>>>> clearly points to this not being relevant.
>>>>
>>>>AIUI you are wrong.
>>>
>>> How so?
>>
>>There is no evidence in the public domain that I recall that could show
>>the
>>firearms officers could not genuinely have an honest belief de Menezes was
>>a
>>suicide bomber.
>
> It's for the police gunman to demonstrate that he had an *honest
> belief*

_Should it get to court_.

> that de Menezes posed an **imminent threat to himself or
> others**, not the other way round. (also see below)
>
>>(by suicide bomber I mean someone on a suicide bombing mission)
>
> OK. But afaics he had no grounds to believe that from first hand
> information.
>
>>>>> AIUI the gunman shot de Menezes because he had been ordered to,
>>>>> not because he thought he presented an imminent threat.
>>>>
>>>>Please cite.
>>>
>>> I'll re-phrase that: "he was ordered to stop de Menezes at all costs".
>>> AIUI the last words from Cressida Dick to her gunmen before she lost
>>> contact was "stop him at all costs". IIUC the gunman took that to be
>>> an order to kill. After all, he's a paid gunman - that's what he does.
>>
>>Speculation.
>
> What is? Are you suggesting that the gunman took it upon himself to
> blast 8 bullets into somebody w/o senior officer authorisation?

Non sequitur.

You don't know what the order was (certainly that is the first time I have
seen "at all costs"), you don't know what authorisations the officers had
nor what they believed.

However, I think it's pretty safe to presume that they were authorised to
shoot should they have an 'honest belief' that it would be 'reasonable
force'.

>>> This really gets to the crux of the issue. The defence appears to be
>>> that the police gunman *honestly believed* that de Menezes was an
>>> imminent threat and had to be killed. But since de Menezes was doing
>>> nothing that you or I wouldn't be doing and wasn't wearing a large
>>> padded jacket with wires sticking out of it and wasn't running away
>>> etc etc - the gunman could only have gotten his *honest belief* from
>>> his commander 5 miles away.
>>
>>Agreed.
>>
>>> IOW he killed a man based upon false information passed to him.
>>> That is not a lawful defence.
>>
>>Straw man: no-one AFAIK has claimed having false information is a defence.
>
> Not at all. What I'm saying is that his information was plainly false
> but he accepted it and went ahead and killed an innocent man.

You have provided no evidence that the information they were given was
plainly false to the firearms officers.

>>> He has to demonstrate how he arrived at his *honest belief* from
>>> first hand information and I don't believe he could possibly do that.
>>
>>No,
>>
>>'In order to prosecute those officers, we would have to prove, beyond
>>reasonable doubt, that they did not honestly and genuinely hold those
>>beliefs. In fact, the evidence supports their claim that they genuinely
>>believed that Mr de Menezes was a suicide bomber and therefore, as we
>>cannot
>>disprove that claim, we cannot prosecute them for murder or any other
>>related offence.'
>>
>><http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/pressreleases/146_06.html>
>>
>>Something called the 'presumption of innocence'.
>
> IMV the CPS statement is extremely dishonest AIU the law...
>
> When you kill someone it is you (not the prosecution) who have to
> prove BRD that you held the *honest belief* that the other person
> was an imminent threat.

_If it gets to court_.

>The law simply provides *honest belief* as
> a defence but that doesn't mean the prosecution need to disprove it.

The CPS has said that it wouldn't be able to show the officers could not
have genuinely held the honest belief in question. It has nothing else on
them hence it isn't proceeding with the prosecution.

The firearms officers don't need to defend themselves until they are tried.

> Otherwise every murderer would simply claim *honest belief* and walk
> free because it's virtually impossible to disprove.

Alex Heney

17-07-2006, 11:30 PM

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 22:10:24 +0100, hummingbird
<RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:26:47 +0100 'TD'
>posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>
>>"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>>news:c4qnb21s7fujeghl4javatjkvlep60kv4o@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:12:07 +0100 'TD'
>>> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>>
>>>>"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:06fnb21s6366esoiqm6n9qlm16jtjvg12h@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 16:31:07 +0100 'Alex Heney'
>>>>> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:54:59 +0100, hummingbird
>>>>>><RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>>>>>Afaik, the law has no provision which allows people to be excused of
>>>>>>>murder on grounds that it resulted from a series of errors inadvertent
>>>>>>>or otherwise
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Well you K wrong then. The law does have a provision that if the
>>>>>>defendant held an honest belief that the victim presented an immediate
>>>>>>threat, then he has a defence to the charge.
>>>>>
>>>>> And the collective factual evidence already in the public domain
>>>>> clearly points to this not being relevant.
>>>>
>>>>AIUI you are wrong.
>>>
>>> How so?
>>
>>There is no evidence in the public domain that I recall that could show the
>>firearms officers could not genuinely have an honest belief de Menezes was a
>>suicide bomber.
>
>It's for the police gunman to demonstrate that he had an *honest
>belief* that de Menezes posed an **imminent threat to himself or
>others**, not the other way round. (also see below)
>

Wrong.

It is for the prosecution to show BRD that he did not.

>>(by suicide bomber I mean someone on a suicide bombing mission)
>
>OK. But afaics he had no grounds to believe that from first hand
>information.
>

It doesn't have to be from first hand information.

The law only requires that he did hold that genuine belief. There is
no requirement as to how he came to that belief.

>
>>> This really gets to the crux of the issue. The defence appears to be
>>> that the police gunman *honestly believed* that de Menezes was an
>>> imminent threat and had to be killed. But since de Menezes was doing
>>> nothing that you or I wouldn't be doing and wasn't wearing a large
>>> padded jacket with wires sticking out of it and wasn't running away
>>> etc etc - the gunman could only have gotten his *honest belief* from
>>> his commander 5 miles away.
>>
>>Agreed.
>>
>>> IOW he killed a man based upon false information passed to him.
>>> That is not a lawful defence.
>>
>>Straw man: no-one AFAIK has claimed having false information is a defence.
>
>Not at all. What I'm saying is that his information was plainly false
>but he accepted it and went ahead and killed an innocent man.
>

You stated "that is not a lawful defence".

>>> He has to demonstrate how he arrived at his *honest belief* from
>>> first hand information and I don't believe he could possibly do that.
>>
>>No,
>>
>>'In order to prosecute those officers, we would have to prove, beyond
>>reasonable doubt, that they did not honestly and genuinely hold those
>>beliefs. In fact, the evidence supports their claim that they genuinely
>>believed that Mr de Menezes was a suicide bomber and therefore, as we cannot
>>disprove that claim, we cannot prosecute them for murder or any other
>>related offence.'
>>
>><http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/pressreleases/146_06.html>
>>
>>Something called the 'presumption of innocence'.
>
>IMV the CPS statement is extremely dishonest AIU the law...
>

It is absolutely correct.

>When you kill someone it is you (not the prosecution) who have to
>prove BRD that you held the *honest belief* that the other person
>was an imminent threat. The law simply provides *honest belief* as
>a defence but that doesn't mean the prosecution need to disprove it.
>

Yes it does.

That is how the law works.

There are some statute laws that change the emphasis for certain
defences, although even then, it is usually only up to the defence to
present evidence that it could reasonably have been the case, and then
it is up to the prosecution to prove it wasn't.

But this is not statute law, it is common law.

And the onus is entirely on the prosecution.

>Otherwise every murderer would simply claim *honest belief* and walk
>free because it's virtually impossible to disprove.

In most cases, it will be quite easy for the jury to be satisfied BRD
that he did not really hold that belief.

Where they are not so satisfied,. then they must find him not guilty.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
God is real, unless declared integer.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Rob

17-07-2006, 11:32 PM

Alex Heney wrote:
|||
||| How so? How would my honest belief differ from that of the shooters
||| in this case?
||
|| There would not be evidence supporting the fact you really did hold
|| that belief.

Not sure how you arrive at that, since I didn't include any other
information in my hypothetical though I could have done. The point is
though, I would almost certainly be having to explain my reasons to a jury.

|| "In fact, the evidence supports their claim that they genuinely
|| believed that Mr de Menezes was a suicide| bomber"

Simply repeating their statement doesn't make it true.

--
Rob

Alex Heney

18-07-2006, 12:16 AM

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 23:32:24 +0100, "Rob"
<rsvptorob-usenetREMOVE@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>Alex Heney wrote:
>|||
>||| How so? How would my honest belief differ from that of the shooters
>||| in this case?
>||
>|| There would not be evidence supporting the fact you really did hold
>|| that belief.
>
>Not sure how you arrive at that, since I didn't include any other
>information in my hypothetical though I could have done.

Yes you did.

You said "If I kill an unarmed burglar".

But yes, I agree, if the evidence pointed towards it being likely you
would have that belief, then there would be no difference.

>The point is
>though, I would almost certainly be having to explain my reasons to a jury.
>

If the CPS thought there was at least a 50:50 chance of success, then
yes.

If the evidence pointed to it being likely you *did* believe him to be
an imminent threat, then you would probably not be prosecuted.

>|| "In fact, the evidence supports their claim that they genuinely
>|| believed that Mr de Menezes was a suicide| bomber"
>
>Simply repeating their statement doesn't make it true.

I wasn't suggesting it did.

Just pointing out the difference, working on the assumption you had
told us everything relevant in your hypothetical situation.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
"I think not," said Descartes, and promptly disappeared.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

chippy

18-07-2006, 12:18 AM

Alex Heney wrote:

>
> It is for the prosecution to show BRD that he did not.

He would still have to state why he held that belief, and explain his
reasons for holding it/

--
wigwambam

Alex Heney

18-07-2006, 02:27 AM

On 17 Jul 2006 23:18:34 GMT, "chippy" <chippy@wood.co.uk> wrote:

>Alex Heney wrote:
>
>>
>> It is for the prosecution to show BRD that he did not.
>
>He would still have to state why he held that belief, and explain his
>reasons for holding it/

He would certainly be expected to.

He has to raise it as an issue, and I don't think just the plain bald
statement "I believed he was an immediate threat" would be sufficient.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Those who can't write, write manuals.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Richard Miller

18-07-2006, 08:22 AM

In message <44bbf284$0$3545$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net>, TD
<tdefries@hotmail.com> writes

>There is no evidence in the public domain that I recall that could show
>the firearms officers could not genuinely have an honest belief de
>Menezes was a suicide bomber.
>
>(by suicide bomber I mean someone on a suicide bombing mission)

Yes there is.

There is the fact that according to the CPS statement, they were not
told that he had a bomb.

There is the fact that their own eyes told them that the surveillance
officer was tackling the suspect.

There was the fact that their own eyes told them that there was nothing
that could be a bomb.

Those three facts would entitle a properly-instructed jury to conclude
that the officers did not have an honest belief that de Menezes was an
immediate threat such that lethal force was warranted.

It may be that after hearing all the evidence from both sides, they
would conclude that in fact the officers *did* hold such an honest
belief, and that they should be acquitted.

But the CPS in this instance has usurped the function of the jury in a
situation where there is sufficient evidence to make a prima facie case.
--
Richard Miller

Richard Miller

18-07-2006, 08:23 AM

In message <v83ob29gu3m0sr7db1j5oj05icefnsmns9@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
<me8@privacy.net> writes

>There would not be evidence supporting the fact you really did hold
>that belief.
>
>"In fact, the evidence supports their claim that they genuinely
>believed that Mr de Menezes was a suicide| bomber"

But, fatal to that line of reasoning, the evidence does not support that
they believed he actually had a bomb with him on this occasion.
--
Richard Miller

Richard Miller

18-07-2006, 08:25 AM

In message <sa6ob2l5p1192b9t92qpbn62d8o4d97ae6@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
<me8@privacy.net> writes
>If the CPS thought there was at least a 50:50 chance of success, then
>yes.
>
>If the evidence pointed to it being likely you *did* believe him to be
>an imminent threat, then you would probably not be prosecuted.

But just changing the facts slightly to something more akin to the de
Menezes case, if he shot his shotgun through the front door at what he
believed was someone breaking into his house, and it turned out to be
the milkman, he absolutely 100% certainly would be.
--
Richard Miller

Richard Miller

18-07-2006, 08:27 AM

In message <1bunb2tqe6f0ic026o6oc0l7i9qjfab3ec@4ax.com>, hummingbird
<RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> writes

>When you kill someone it is you (not the prosecution) who have to prove
>BRD that you held the *honest belief* that the other person was an
>imminent threat. The law simply provides *honest belief* as a defence
>but that doesn't mean the prosecution need to disprove it.

No, that is not correct. If the defence raises self-defence and honest
belief as an issue, the prosecution is required to prove it beyond
reasonable doubt.

>
>Otherwise every murderer would simply claim *honest belief* and walk
>free because it's virtually impossible to disprove.

I don't think so. There are very few cases in which such a claim would
be credible.
--
Richard Miller

Richard Miller

18-07-2006, 08:31 AM

In message <ra3ob2d8lfvugs6bq3u19i2qtfjfkv3qd3@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
<me8@privacy.net> writes

>It doesn't have to be from first hand information.
>
>The law only requires that he did hold that genuine belief. There is no
>requirement as to how he came to that belief.

The proviso to this comment is that this is something that has developed
over time through case law. I don't think the point has ever been tested
whether the honest belief has to have been formed from the killer's own
observations, or whether he can rely exclusively on something he has
been told by someone else. I am far from convinced that a belief formed
without any personal assessment of the situation would give rise to a
defence, because of the extreme personal onus on anyone who takes
another's life to justify doing so.

And I am quite certain that if the killer putting forward this defence
was anyone other than a police officer, the CPS would have proceeded
with the case.
--
Richard Miller

hummingbird

18-07-2006, 09:19 AM

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 22:15:13 +0100 'Alex Heney'
posted this onto uk.politics.misc:

>On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 20:56:38 +0100, "Chris X"
><Chris_X2006@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>>news:c4qnb21s7fujeghl4javatjkvlep60kv4o@4ax.com...
><snip>
>
>>>
>>> I'll re-phrase that: "he was ordered to stop de Menezes at all costs".
>>> AIUI the last words from Cressida Dick to her gunmen before she lost
>>> contact was "stop him at all costs". IIUC the gunman took that to be
>>> an order to kill. After all, he's a paid gunman - that's what he does.
>>>
>>> This really gets to the crux of the issue. The defence appears to be
>>> that the police gunman *honestly believed* that de Menezes was an
>>> imminent threat and had to be killed. But since de Menezes was doing
>>> nothing that you or I wouldn't be doing and wasn't wearing a large
>>> padded jacket with wires sticking out of it and wasn't running away
>>> etc etc - the gunman could only have gotten his *honest belief* from
>>> his commander 5 miles away.
>>>
>>> IOW he killed a man based upon false information passed to him.
>>> That is not a lawful defence.
>>>
>>> He has to demonstrate how he arrived at his *honest belief* from
>>> first hand information and I don't believe he could possibly do that.
>>
>>Very good points !
>>
>
>Good points morally, perhaps.
>
>But all wrong in law :-(

You need to explain how.
Afaik a defence of *honest belief* is available under the law but it's
for the defence to prove, not the prosecution.

--
"Blair's inner circle and its ferocious grab for power":
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1747772,00.html

"In the guise of fighting terrorism and maintaining public order,
Tony Blair's Government has quietly and systematically taken power
from Parliament and the British people. The author [Henry Porter]
charts a nine-year assault on civil liberties that reveals the
danger of trading freedom for security":
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1129827.ece

hummingbird

18-07-2006, 09:50 AM

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 23:22:18 +0100 'TD'
posted this onto uk.politics.misc:

>"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>news:1bunb2tqe6f0ic026o6oc0l7i9qjfab3ec@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:26:47 +0100 'TD'
>> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>
>>>"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>>>news:c4qnb21s7fujeghl4javatjkvlep60kv4o@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:12:07 +0100 'TD'
>>>> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>>>
>>>>>"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:06fnb21s6366esoiqm6n9qlm16jtjvg12h@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 16:31:07 +0100 'Alex Heney'
>>>>>> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:54:59 +0100, hummingbird
>>>>>>><RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>>>Afaik, the law has no provision which allows people to be excused of
>>>>>>>>murder on grounds that it resulted from a series of errors
>>>>>>>>inadvertent
>>>>>>>>or otherwise
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Well you K wrong then. The law does have a provision that if the
>>>>>>>defendant held an honest belief that the victim presented an immediate
>>>>>>>threat, then he has a defence to the charge.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And the collective factual evidence already in the public domain
>>>>>> clearly points to this not being relevant.
>>>>>
>>>>>AIUI you are wrong.
>>>>
>>>> How so?
>>>
>>>There is no evidence in the public domain that I recall that could show
>>>the
>>>firearms officers could not genuinely have an honest belief de Menezes was
>>>a
>>>suicide bomber.
>>
>> It's for the police gunman to demonstrate that he had an *honest
>> belief*
>
>_Should it get to court_.

Well quite. But it should do. I can see no reason why not.

>> that de Menezes posed an **imminent threat to himself or
>> others**, not the other way round. (also see below)
>>
>>>(by suicide bomber I mean someone on a suicide bombing mission)
>>
>> OK. But afaics he had no grounds to believe that from first hand
>> information.
>>
>>>>>> AIUI the gunman shot de Menezes because he had been ordered to,
>>>>>> not because he thought he presented an imminent threat.
>>>>>
>>>>>Please cite.
>>>>
>>>> I'll re-phrase that: "he was ordered to stop de Menezes at all costs".
>>>> AIUI the last words from Cressida Dick to her gunmen before she lost
>>>> contact was "stop him at all costs". IIUC the gunman took that to be
>>>> an order to kill. After all, he's a paid gunman - that's what he does.
>>>
>>>Speculation.
>>
>> What is? Are you suggesting that the gunman took it upon himself to
>> blast 8 bullets into somebody w/o senior officer authorisation?
>
>Non sequitur.

Not really. Just pointing out that when police call in their gunmen,
there becomes an expectation that somebody may get shot, especially
when the commander says "stop him at all costs". What should the
gunman do? throw stones at the suspect?

>You don't know what the order was (certainly that is the first time I have
>seen "at all costs"), you don't know what authorisations the officers had
>nor what they believed.

Obviously I'm quoting from numerous TV News/news articles but I have
little doubt to think they're wrong.

Whatever, if it was not the case that he was given those instructions
and therefore acted on his own initiative (as indeed he should have
done), that makes it even more the case that he should be held to
account.

>However, I think it's pretty safe to presume that they were authorised to
>shoot should they have an 'honest belief' that it would be 'reasonable
>force'.

But the gunman is not to be given the opportunity to prove BRD that
his *honest belief* was derived from his own observations at the time
and not from comments/instructions made to him by his superiors; the
latter of course would be unacceptable as a defence.

The CPS have decided not to go ahead and are therefore pre-judging
what a court may decide.
There appears 'at least' to be a mindset within the CPS that because
we are talking here of a policeman, we should assume that he did not
kill the victim out of malice and therefore we should apply softer
rules to him than say a common murderer and turn the law on its
head in the process.

>>>> This really gets to the crux of the issue. The defence appears to be
>>>> that the police gunman *honestly believed* that de Menezes was an
>>>> imminent threat and had to be killed. But since de Menezes was doing
>>>> nothing that you or I wouldn't be doing and wasn't wearing a large
>>>> padded jacket with wires sticking out of it and wasn't running away
>>>> etc etc - the gunman could only have gotten his *honest belief* from
>>>> his commander 5 miles away.
>>>
>>>Agreed.

Then the matter should go to court.

>>>> IOW he killed a man based upon false information passed to him.
>>>> That is not a lawful defence.
>>>
>>>Straw man: no-one AFAIK has claimed having false information is a defence.
>>
>> Not at all. What I'm saying is that his information was plainly false
>> but he accepted it and went ahead and killed an innocent man.
>
>You have provided no evidence that the information they were given was
>plainly false to the firearms officers.
>
>>>> He has to demonstrate how he arrived at his *honest belief* from
>>>> first hand information and I don't believe he could possibly do that.
>>>
>>>No,
>>>
>>>'In order to prosecute those officers, we would have to prove, beyond
>>>reasonable doubt, that they did not honestly and genuinely hold those
>>>beliefs. In fact, the evidence supports their claim that they genuinely
>>>believed that Mr de Menezes was a suicide bomber and therefore, as we
>>>cannot
>>>disprove that claim, we cannot prosecute them for murder or any other
>>>related offence.'
>>>
>>><http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/pressreleases/146_06.html>
>>>
>>>Something called the 'presumption of innocence'.
>>
>> IMV the CPS statement is extremely dishonest AIU the law...
>>
>> When you kill someone it is you (not the prosecution) who have to
>> prove BRD that you held the *honest belief* that the other person
>> was an imminent threat.
>
>_If it gets to court_.

I don't know how the CPS have got away with their statement.

>>The law simply provides *honest belief* as
>> a defence but that doesn't mean the prosecution need to disprove it.
>
>The CPS has said that it wouldn't be able to show the officers could not
>have genuinely held the honest belief in question. It has nothing else on
>them hence it isn't proceeding with the prosecution.

Indeed but I repeat that the CPS are turning the law on its head.
If the matter went to court, I can't believe the gunman could prove
BRD that his honest belief was derived from his own first hand
observations as would be required. The CPS are asserting that it's
for the prosecution to disprove their claim.

>The firearms officers don't need to defend themselves until they are tried.
>
>> Otherwise every murderer would simply claim *honest belief* and walk
>> free because it's virtually impossible to disprove.

--
"Blair's inner circle and its ferocious grab for power":
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1747772,00.html

"In the guise of fighting terrorism and maintaining public order,
Tony Blair's Government has quietly and systematically taken power
from Parliament and the British people. The author [Henry Porter]
charts a nine-year assault on civil liberties that reveals the
danger of trading freedom for security":
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1129827.ece

Scorpius

18-07-2006, 09:54 AM

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 08:27:25 +0100, Richard Miller
<richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>If the defence raises self-defence and honest
>belief as an issue, the prosecution is required to prove it beyond
>reasonable doubt.

Tony Martin said he honestly believed his life was in danger and had
to use deadly force.

What did the persecution do to prove that was not true beyond
reasonble doubt? They deliberately left out the forensic evidence
relating to his position on the steps when he fired the first shot and
claimed he fired the first shot when he was down the steps.

The defense failed to call them on this because Martin's earlier story
would have been called into question. That's the old "what a tangled
web we weave..." Nevertheless, did the persecution prove he did not
reasonably believe his llife was in danger beyone ALL reasonable
doubt? IOW, what if Martin had actually fired the first shot not on
the stairs - how does that prove he did not honestly believe he was in
fear for his life?

>>Otherwise every murderer would simply claim *honest belief* and walk
>>free because it's virtually impossible to disprove.

>I don't think so. There are very few cases in which such a claim would
>be credible.

IOW, there is no such thing as self defense in Britain.

--

Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!

18-07-2006, 09:54 AM

"TD" <tdefries@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:44bc0d98$0$22092$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
>
> "hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
> news:1bunb2tqe6f0ic026o6oc0l7i9qjfab3ec@4ax.com...
>>
<snip>
>> What is? Are you suggesting that the gunman took it upon himself to
>> blast 8 bullets into somebody w/o senior officer authorisation?
>
> Non sequitur.
>
> You don't know what the order was (certainly that is the first time I
> have seen "at all costs"), you don't know what authorisations the officers
> had nor what they believed.
>
> However, I think it's pretty safe to presume that they were authorised to
> shoot should they have an 'honest belief' that it would be 'reasonable
> force'.

Although, according to last night's Evening Standard, Cressida Dick claimed
she did not speak the codeword.

<snip>

Scorpius

18-07-2006, 09:57 AM

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 09:19:24 +0100, hummingbird
<RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:

>Afaik a defence of *honest belief* is available under the law but it's
>for the defence to prove, not the prosecution.

In Common Law the defense does not have to prove anything - it is the
job of the state to prove that the defendant is guilty.

In Corpus Juris, the defense has to prove the defendant is innocent.

--

Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!

PeteM

18-07-2006, 09:58 AM

Richard Miller <richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> posted
>In message <v83ob29gu3m0sr7db1j5oj05icefnsmns9@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
><me8@privacy.net> writes
>
>>There would not be evidence supporting the fact you really did hold
>>that belief.
>>
>>"In fact, the evidence supports their claim that they genuinely
>>believed that Mr de Menezes was a suicide| bomber"
>
>But, fatal to that line of reasoning, the evidence does not support that
>they believed he actually had a bomb with him on this occasion.

The Menezes' lawyer more or less said this yesterday on the news, so
clearly they have identified this as a key point. I expect they will
challenge the CPS's decision through judicial review.

--
PeteM

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

hummingbird

18-07-2006, 10:03 AM

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 08:31:33 +0100 'Richard Miller'
posted this onto uk.politics.misc:

>In message <ra3ob2d8lfvugs6bq3u19i2qtfjfkv3qd3@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
><me8@privacy.net> writes
>
>>It doesn't have to be from first hand information.
>>
>>The law only requires that he did hold that genuine belief. There is no
>>requirement as to how he came to that belief.
>
>The proviso to this comment is that this is something that has developed
>over time through case law. I don't think the point has ever been tested
>whether the honest belief has to have been formed from the killer's own
>observations, or whether he can rely exclusively on something he has
>been told by someone else. I am far from convinced that a belief formed
>without any personal assessment of the situation would give rise to a
>defence, because of the extreme personal onus on anyone who takes
>another's life to justify doing so.
>
>And I am quite certain that if the killer putting forward this defence
>was anyone other than a police officer, the CPS would have proceeded
>with the case.

Quite so. That sums it up well.

--
"Blair's inner circle and its ferocious grab for power":
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1747772,00.html

"In the guise of fighting terrorism and maintaining public order,
Tony Blair's Government has quietly and systematically taken power
from Parliament and the British people. The author [Henry Porter]
charts a nine-year assault on civil liberties that reveals the
danger of trading freedom for security":
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1129827.ece

hummingbird

18-07-2006, 10:09 AM

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 08:27:25 +0100 'Richard Miller'
posted this onto uk.politics.misc:

>In message <1bunb2tqe6f0ic026o6oc0l7i9qjfab3ec@4ax.com>, hummingbird
><RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> writes
>
>>When you kill someone it is you (not the prosecution) who have to prove
>>BRD that you held the *honest belief* that the other person was an
>>imminent threat. The law simply provides *honest belief* as a defence
>>but that doesn't mean the prosecution need to disprove it.
>
>No, that is not correct. If the defence raises self-defence and honest
>belief as an issue, the prosecution is required to prove it beyond
>reasonable doubt.

So it appears the law does not require each person to be accountable
for their actions based upon their own assessment of the circumstances
and is not required to prove BRD that his reasons were justified. Do I
get the feeling that the law is an ass?

>>Otherwise every murderer would simply claim *honest belief* and walk
>>free because it's virtually impossible to disprove.
>
>I don't think so. There are very few cases in which such a claim would
>be credible.

In cases where this defence is claimed, ISTM the obligation is upon
the accused to prove, not the prosecution.

--
"Blair's inner circle and its ferocious grab for power":
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1747772,00.html

"In the guise of fighting terrorism and maintaining public order,
Tony Blair's Government has quietly and systematically taken power
from Parliament and the British people. The author [Henry Porter]
charts a nine-year assault on civil liberties that reveals the
danger of trading freedom for security":
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1129827.ece

18-07-2006, 10:22 AM

"Richard Miller" <richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tzp7GnvZwIvEFwVk@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...
> In message <44bbf284$0$3545$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net>, TD
> <tdefries@hotmail.com> writes
>
>>There is no evidence in the public domain that I recall that could show
>>the firearms officers could not genuinely have an honest belief de Menezes
>>was a suicide bomber.
>>
>>(by suicide bomber I mean someone on a suicide bombing mission)
>
> Yes there is.
>
> There is the fact that according to the CPS statement, they were not told
> that he had a bomb.

The CPS statement doesn't mention whether they were told he had a bomb or
not.

> There is the fact that their own eyes told them that the surveillance
> officer was tackling the suspect.

I do not see how the tackling is relevant.

> There was the fact that their own eyes told them that there was nothing
> that could be a bomb.

I do not see how you know what their own eyes told them.

> Those three facts would entitle a properly-instructed jury to conclude
> that the officers did not have an honest belief that de Menezes was an
> immediate threat such that lethal force was warranted.
>
> It may be that after hearing all the evidence from both sides, they would
> conclude that in fact the officers *did* hold such an honest belief, and
> that they should be acquitted.
>
> But the CPS in this instance has usurped the function of the jury in a
> situation where there is sufficient evidence to make a prima facie case.

FWIW I agree that the threshold for decisions to prosecute the police and
other people in authority should be lower than for members of the public.

18-07-2006, 10:44 AM

18-07-2006, 11:08 AM

"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
news:i09pb25eodjv8em7l00v61j25b2uu90fhk@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 08:27:25 +0100 'Richard Miller'
> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>
>>In message <1bunb2tqe6f0ic026o6oc0l7i9qjfab3ec@4ax.com>, hummingbird
>><RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> writes
>>
>>>When you kill someone it is you (not the prosecution) who have to prove
>>>BRD that you held the *honest belief* that the other person was an
>>>imminent threat. The law simply provides *honest belief* as a defence
>>>but that doesn't mean the prosecution need to disprove it.
>>
>>No, that is not correct. If the defence raises self-defence and honest
>>belief as an issue, the prosecution is required to prove it beyond
>>reasonable doubt.
>
> So it appears the law does not require each person to be accountable
> for their actions based upon their own assessment of the circumstances
> and is not required to prove BRD that his reasons were justified. Do I
> get the feeling that the law is an ass?

You should be getting the feeling that this supports the presumption of
innocence: i.e. it is for the prosecution to prove BRD that the shooter
could not have genuinely held the honest belief.

>>>Otherwise every murderer would simply claim *honest belief* and walk
>>>free because it's virtually impossible to disprove.
>>
>>I don't think so. There are very few cases in which such a claim would
>>be credible.
>
> In cases where this defence is claimed, ISTM the obligation is upon
> the accused to prove, not the prosecution.

You are still wrong.

18-07-2006, 11:08 AM

"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
news:b76pb2hl0mal8kra7889furi3tn7qhd70j@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 22:15:13 +0100 'Alex Heney'
> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>
>>On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 20:56:38 +0100, "Chris X"
>><Chris_X2006@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>>>news:c4qnb21s7fujeghl4javatjkvlep60kv4o@4ax.com...
>><snip>
>>
>>>>
>>>> I'll re-phrase that: "he was ordered to stop de Menezes at all costs".
>>>> AIUI the last words from Cressida Dick to her gunmen before she lost
>>>> contact was "stop him at all costs". IIUC the gunman took that to be
>>>> an order to kill. After all, he's a paid gunman - that's what he does.
>>>>
>>>> This really gets to the crux of the issue. The defence appears to be
>>>> that the police gunman *honestly believed* that de Menezes was an
>>>> imminent threat and had to be killed. But since de Menezes was doing
>>>> nothing that you or I wouldn't be doing and wasn't wearing a large
>>>> padded jacket with wires sticking out of it and wasn't running away
>>>> etc etc - the gunman could only have gotten his *honest belief* from
>>>> his commander 5 miles away.
>>>>
>>>> IOW he killed a man based upon false information passed to him.
>>>> That is not a lawful defence.
>>>>
>>>> He has to demonstrate how he arrived at his *honest belief* from
>>>> first hand information and I don't believe he could possibly do that.
>>>
>>>Very good points !
>>>
>>
>>Good points morally, perhaps.
>>
>>But all wrong in law :-(
>
> You need to explain how.

He already has, several times, in this thread for example. As has Richard
Miller, and others.

> Afaik a defence of *honest belief* is available under the law but it's
> for the defence to prove, not the prosecution.

The prosecution has the _burden of proof_, and that's just how it should be.

hummingbird

18-07-2006, 11:55 AM

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:08:50 +0100 'TD'
posted this onto uk.politics.misc:

>
>"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>news:b76pb2hl0mal8kra7889furi3tn7qhd70j@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 22:15:13 +0100 'Alex Heney'
>> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>
>>>On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 20:56:38 +0100, "Chris X"
>>><Chris_X2006@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:c4qnb21s7fujeghl4javatjkvlep60kv4o@4ax.com...
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll re-phrase that: "he was ordered to stop de Menezes at all costs".
>>>>> AIUI the last words from Cressida Dick to her gunmen before she lost
>>>>> contact was "stop him at all costs". IIUC the gunman took that to be
>>>>> an order to kill. After all, he's a paid gunman - that's what he does.
>>>>>
>>>>> This really gets to the crux of the issue. The defence appears to be
>>>>> that the police gunman *honestly believed* that de Menezes was an
>>>>> imminent threat and had to be killed. But since de Menezes was doing
>>>>> nothing that you or I wouldn't be doing and wasn't wearing a large
>>>>> padded jacket with wires sticking out of it and wasn't running away
>>>>> etc etc - the gunman could only have gotten his *honest belief* from
>>>>> his commander 5 miles away.
>>>>>
>>>>> IOW he killed a man based upon false information passed to him.
>>>>> That is not a lawful defence.
>>>>>
>>>>> He has to demonstrate how he arrived at his *honest belief* from
>>>>> first hand information and I don't believe he could possibly do that.
>>>>
>>>>Very good points !
>>>>
>>>
>>>Good points morally, perhaps.
>>>
>>>But all wrong in law :-(
>>
>> You need to explain how.
>
>He already has, several times, in this thread for example. As has Richard
>Miller, and others.

Indeed - it's all to do with sequential postings and all that.... ;-)

>> Afaik a defence of *honest belief* is available under the law but it's
>> for the defence to prove, not the prosecution.
>
>The prosecution has the _burden of proof_, and that's just how it should be.

I have a serious problem with this in the context of the de Menezes
case as you know.

--
"Blair's inner circle and its ferocious grab for power":
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1747772,00.html

"In the guise of fighting terrorism and maintaining public order,
Tony Blair's Government has quietly and systematically taken power
from Parliament and the British people. The author [Henry Porter]
charts a nine-year assault on civil liberties that reveals the
danger of trading freedom for security":
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1129827.ece

hummingbird

18-07-2006, 12:04 PM

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:08:45 +0100 'TD'
posted this onto uk.politics.misc:

>
>"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>news:i09pb25eodjv8em7l00v61j25b2uu90fhk@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 08:27:25 +0100 'Richard Miller'
>> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>
>>>In message <1bunb2tqe6f0ic026o6oc0l7i9qjfab3ec@4ax.com>, hummingbird
>>><RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> writes
>>>
>>>>When you kill someone it is you (not the prosecution) who have to prove
>>>>BRD that you held the *honest belief* that the other person was an
>>>>imminent threat. The law simply provides *honest belief* as a defence
>>>>but that doesn't mean the prosecution need to disprove it.
>>>
>>>No, that is not correct. If the defence raises self-defence and honest
>>>belief as an issue, the prosecution is required to prove it beyond
>>>reasonable doubt.
>>
>> So it appears the law does not require each person to be accountable
>> for their actions based upon their own assessment of the circumstances
>> and is not required to prove BRD that his reasons were justified. Do I
>> get the feeling that the law is an ass?
>
>You should be getting the feeling that this supports the presumption of
>innocence: i.e. it is for the prosecution to prove BRD that the shooter
>could not have genuinely held the honest belief.

I believe when a person shoots another in cold blood, the presumption
should be that he is guilty: "I saw him shoot the guy My Lord".

I have no problem whatsoever with the accused putting up a defence
of *honest belief* providing that he can prove it BRD to a court.
I do not believe it should be the duty of the court to disprove it.

The current legal situation is a farce, coincidentally framed (by
chance or intent) to provide police gunmen and other agents of the
state with a get-out-of-jail-free card, but not most other killers.

>>>>Otherwise every murderer would simply claim *honest belief* and walk
>>>>free because it's virtually impossible to disprove.
>>>
>>>I don't think so. There are very few cases in which such a claim would
>>>be credible.
>>
>> In cases where this defence is claimed, ISTM the obligation is upon
>> the accused to prove, not the prosecution.
>
>You are still wrong.

So I have accepted. Oddly I thought this issue had been thrashed out
here several months ago and that it was for the defence to demonstrate
that their *honest belief* existed BRD. The circumstances of the de
Menezes case would make that possibility look like a Swiss cheese.

--
"Blair's inner circle and its ferocious grab for power":
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1747772,00.html

"In the guise of fighting terrorism and maintaining public order,
Tony Blair's Government has quietly and systematically taken power
from Parliament and the British people. The author [Henry Porter]
charts a nine-year assault on civil liberties that reveals the
danger of trading freedom for security":
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1129827.ece

18-07-2006, 12:25 PM

hummingbird

18-07-2006, 12:34 PM

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 08:57:19 GMT 'Scorpius'
posted this onto uk.politics.misc:

>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 09:19:24 +0100, hummingbird
><RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:
>
>>Afaik a defence of *honest belief* is available under the law but it's
>>for the defence to prove, not the prosecution.

>In Common Law the defense does not have to prove anything - it is the
>job of the state to prove that the defendant is guilty.

Yes I appreciate that.
So in this case I find the police gunman guilty of murder because
he shot and killed de Menezes .....and he doesn't even deny it.

What's that I hear you say about him having an honest belief that
de Menezes posed an imminent threat? Prove it!

>In Corpus Juris, the defense has to prove the defendant is innocent.

--
"Blair's inner circle and its ferocious grab for power":
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1747772,00.html

"In the guise of fighting terrorism and maintaining public order,
Tony Blair's Government has quietly and systematically taken power
from Parliament and the British people. The author [Henry Porter]
charts a nine-year assault on civil liberties that reveals the
danger of trading freedom for security":
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1129827.ece

Cynic

18-07-2006, 12:56 PM

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 22:16:16 +0100, Mike <mike@kempston.net> wrote:

>Have I missed some sublety? I thought those arguing that the shooters
>behaved properly were arguing precisely that: that possession of false
>information caused an honest belief that the (false) information was
>true and that the honest belief so formed is the only and sufficient
>defence.

The flaw in that argument is that AFAIK there never *was* any
information passed that stated that Menezes had a bomb and so posed a
threat.

--
Cynic

PeteM

18-07-2006, 12:57 PM

TD <tdefries@hotmail.com> posted
>
>"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>news:i09pb25eodjv8em7l00v61j25b2uu90fhk@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 08:27:25 +0100 'Richard Miller'
>> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>
>>>No, that is not correct. If the defence raises self-defence and honest
>>>belief as an issue, the prosecution is required to prove it beyond
>>>reasonable doubt.
>>
>> So it appears the law does not require each person to be accountable
>> for their actions based upon their own assessment of the circumstances
>> and is not required to prove BRD that his reasons were justified. Do I
>> get the feeling that the law is an ass?
>
>You should be getting the feeling that this supports the presumption of
>innocence: i.e. it is for the prosecution to prove BRD that the shooter
>could not have genuinely held the honest belief.
>

ISTM two extreme positions are being argued here and both are wrong.

The first position is: (1a) It is impossible to know BRD what a person
believed at any given moment. (1b) If someone accused of murder claims
that he honestly believed that the person he killed was about to kill
him, then he must be acquitted because of (1a) combined with the
principle of "innocent until proven guilty". (1c) Therefore in order for
any murder prosecution to fail, the accused need only claim that he
honestly believed that the person he killed was about to kill him.

The second position is: (2a) Someone against whom a convincing case of
murder has been made out should be required to produce a credible
defence, or at least to undermine the prosecution case. (2b) A claim of
"honest belief" is so easy to fabricate that it is not a credible
defence to such a serious charge unless proven to be true. (2c)
Therefore in order for a murder prosecution to fail in these
circumstances, the accused must prove that he had the required belief.

There is some truth in both of these but ultimately both claim too much.
As has been pointed out, (1) means you can never convict anybody of
murder while (2) means that the defendant is faced with the impossible
task of proving BRD what he believed at the time.

Realistically the situation must be that the accused should be required
only to produce some plausible evidence that he did hold this belief.
The prosecution can then try to discredit this, or produce evidence that
he did not. In the end, the jury has to decide.

Obviously this procedure risks convicting somebody who really did have
the required belief. That would be a miscarriage of justice, but not all
that serious. After all the accused is known to have deliberately killed
someone who was himself entirely innocent, so he can hardly complain
that life isn't fair.

--
PeteM

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Cynic

18-07-2006, 12:59 PM

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 08:22:01 +0100, Richard Miller
<richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>But the CPS in this instance has usurped the function of the jury in a
>situation where there is sufficient evidence to make a prima facie case.

Exactly. In addition, I believe that there is sufficient public
interest in putting the issue to a public trial to stop the allegation
of "whitewash" that the CPS should have gone ahead even if the chance
of a conviction is lower than their usual standards.

--
Cynic

Uno-Hoo!

18-07-2006, 01:12 PM

Uno-Hoo!

18-07-2006, 01:12 PM

"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
news:d7unb2lp1rm5va55f7slot4q3rt5jiuibr@4ax.com...
> On 17 Jul 2006 20:24:02 GMT 'chippy'
> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>
>>Chris X wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>>> news:c4qnb21s7fujeghl4javatjkvlep60kv4o@4ax.com...
>>> > On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:12:07 +0100 'TD'
>>> > posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>> >
>>> >>"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>>> > > news:06fnb21s6366esoiqm6n9qlm16jtjvg12h@4ax.com...
>>> > > > On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 16:31:07 +0100 'Alex Heney'
>>> > > > posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > > On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:54:59 +0100, hummingbird
>>> >>>><RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:
>>> > > > >
>>> > > <snip>
>>> > > > > > Afaik, the law has no provision which allows people to be
>>> > > > > > excused of murder on grounds that it resulted from a series
>>> > > > > > of errors inadvertent or otherwise
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > Well you K wrong then. The law does have a provision that if
>>> > > > > the defendant held an honest belief that the victim presented
>>> > > > > an immediate threat, then he has a defence to the charge.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > And the collective factual evidence already in the public domain
>>> > > > clearly points to this not being relevant.
>>> > >
>>> > > AIUI you are wrong.
>>> >
>>> > How so?
>>> >
>>> > > > AIUI the gunman shot de Menezes because he had been ordered to,
>>> > > > not because he thought he presented an imminent threat.
>>> > >
>>> > > Please cite.
>>> >
>>> > I'll re-phrase that: "he was ordered to stop de Menezes at all
>>> > costs". AIUI the last words from Cressida Dick to her gunmen
>>> > before she lost contact was "stop him at all costs". IIUC the
>>> > gunman took that to be an order to kill. After all, he's a paid
>>> > gunman - that's what he does.
>>> >
>>> > This really gets to the crux of the issue. The defence appears to be
>>> > that the police gunman *honestly believed* that de Menezes was an
>>> > imminent threat and had to be killed. But since de Menezes was doing
>>> > nothing that you or I wouldn't be doing and wasn't wearing a large
>>> > padded jacket with wires sticking out of it and wasn't running away
>>> > etc etc - the gunman could only have gotten his *honest belief* from
>>> > his commander 5 miles away.
>>> >
>>> > IOW he killed a man based upon false information passed to him.
>>> > That is not a lawful defence.
>>> >
>>> > He has to demonstrate how he arrived at his *honest belief* from
>>> > first hand information and I don't believe he could possibly do
>>> > that.
>>>
>>> Very good points !
>>
>>And not relevant as to whether the CPS will prosecute.
>
> We know they will not prosecute, they said it today.
> What we're doing is putting forward reasons why they are wrong.

And the ones you are putting forward are not correct in law.

Uno-Hoo!

Uno-Hoo!

18-07-2006, 01:15 PM

"Richard Miller" <richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dkjHjpwwzIvEFwyi@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...
> In message <sa6ob2l5p1192b9t92qpbn62d8o4d97ae6@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
> <me8@privacy.net> writes
>>If the CPS thought there was at least a 50:50 chance of success, then yes.
>>
>>If the evidence pointed to it being likely you *did* believe him to be an
>>imminent threat, then you would probably not be prosecuted.
>
> But just changing the facts slightly to something more akin to the de
> Menezes case, if he shot his shotgun through the front door at what he
> believed was someone breaking into his house, and it turned out to be the
> milkman, he absolutely 100% certainly would be.

And you truly believe that scenario to be 'akin to the Menezes case'?

Uno-Hoo!

Uno-Hoo!

18-07-2006, 01:16 PM

"Richard Miller" <richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:VUuF$OwHyIvEFwQp@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...
> In message <v83ob29gu3m0sr7db1j5oj05icefnsmns9@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
> <me8@privacy.net> writes
>
>>There would not be evidence supporting the fact you really did hold that
>>belief.
>>
>>"In fact, the evidence supports their claim that they genuinely believed
>>that Mr de Menezes was a suicide| bomber"
>
> But, fatal to that line of reasoning, the evidence does not support that
> they believed he actually had a bomb with him on this occasion.

How do you know? Do you know what they were told? You are just speculating
Richard.

Uno-Hoo!

The Todal

18-07-2006, 01:16 PM

"Cynic" <cynic_999@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:q4jpb2tv561chtv0dgkn8q7sa9eisgoeup@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 08:22:01 +0100, Richard Miller
> <richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>But the CPS in this instance has usurped the function of the jury in a
>>situation where there is sufficient evidence to make a prima facie case.
>
> Exactly. In addition, I believe that there is sufficient public
> interest in putting the issue to a public trial to stop the allegation
> of "whitewash" that the CPS should have gone ahead even if the chance
> of a conviction is lower than their usual standards.

It has taken ages for them to announce their decision and I do wonder
whether they would have been more honest if they had cited "public interest"
rather than the chances of conviction.

They are probably now waiting anxiously to see if the fuss will die down. I
think it probably will. If the wellbeing of any government minister is not
at risk, the government won't intervene.

Uno-Hoo!

18-07-2006, 01:18 PM

"PeteM" <Otcbn@callnetuk.com> wrote in message
news:BM70yIAtKKvEFwz$@callnetuk.com...
> Richard Miller <richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> posted
>>In message <v83ob29gu3m0sr7db1j5oj05icefnsmns9@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
>><me8@privacy.net> writes
>>
>>>There would not be evidence supporting the fact you really did hold
>>>that belief.
>>>
>>>"In fact, the evidence supports their claim that they genuinely
>>>believed that Mr de Menezes was a suicide| bomber"
>>
>>But, fatal to that line of reasoning, the evidence does not support that
>>they believed he actually had a bomb with him on this occasion.
>
> The Menezes' lawyer more or less said this yesterday on the news, so
> clearly they have identified this as a key point. I expect they will
> challenge the CPS's decision through judicial review.

I actually hope that they do because then the suggestion that the CPS are
government puppets would be settled one way or the other. Of course if the
judicial review backed up the CPS - then it still wouldn't satisfy the usual
suspects who would just claim that the judiciary are in the govt's pockets!

Uno-Hoo!

Uno-Hoo!

18-07-2006, 01:27 PM

"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
news:tf7pb29mm4egdl8170jqhcatd08d9tu9gf@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 23:22:18 +0100 'TD'
> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>
>>"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>>news:1bunb2tqe6f0ic026o6oc0l7i9qjfab3ec@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:26:47 +0100 'TD'
>>> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>>
>>>>"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:c4qnb21s7fujeghl4javatjkvlep60kv4o@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:12:07 +0100 'TD'
>>>>> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:06fnb21s6366esoiqm6n9qlm16jtjvg12h@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 16:31:07 +0100 'Alex Heney'
>>>>>>> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:54:59 +0100, hummingbird
>>>>>>>><RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>>>>Afaik, the law has no provision which allows people to be excused
>>>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>>>murder on grounds that it resulted from a series of errors
>>>>>>>>>inadvertent
>>>>>>>>>or otherwise
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Well you K wrong then. The law does have a provision that if the
>>>>>>>>defendant held an honest belief that the victim presented an
>>>>>>>>immediate
>>>>>>>>threat, then he has a defence to the charge.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And the collective factual evidence already in the public domain
>>>>>>> clearly points to this not being relevant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>AIUI you are wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> How so?
>>>>
>>>>There is no evidence in the public domain that I recall that could show
>>>>the
>>>>firearms officers could not genuinely have an honest belief de Menezes
>>>>was
>>>>a
>>>>suicide bomber.
>>>
>>> It's for the police gunman to demonstrate that he had an *honest
>>> belief*
>>
>>_Should it get to court_.
>
> Well quite. But it should do. I can see no reason why not.
>
>>> that de Menezes posed an **imminent threat to himself or
>>> others**, not the other way round. (also see below)
>>>
>>>>(by suicide bomber I mean someone on a suicide bombing mission)
>>>
>>> OK. But afaics he had no grounds to believe that from first hand
>>> information.
>>>
>>>>>>> AIUI the gunman shot de Menezes because he had been ordered to,
>>>>>>> not because he thought he presented an imminent threat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Please cite.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll re-phrase that: "he was ordered to stop de Menezes at all costs".
>>>>> AIUI the last words from Cressida Dick to her gunmen before she lost
>>>>> contact was "stop him at all costs". IIUC the gunman took that to be
>>>>> an order to kill. After all, he's a paid gunman - that's what he does.
>>>>
>>>>Speculation.
>>>
>>> What is? Are you suggesting that the gunman took it upon himself to
>>> blast 8 bullets into somebody w/o senior officer authorisation?
>>
>>Non sequitur.
>
> Not really. Just pointing out that when police call in their gunmen,
> there becomes an expectation that somebody may get shot, especially
> when the commander says "stop him at all costs". What should the
> gunman do? throw stones at the suspect?
>
>>You don't know what the order was (certainly that is the first time I
>>have
>>seen "at all costs"), you don't know what authorisations the officers had
>>nor what they believed.
>
> Obviously I'm quoting from numerous TV News/news articles but I have
> little doubt to think they're wrong.

I also have watched and read many media articles but have never heard anyone
suggest that the words 'at all costs' were ever used.
>
> Whatever, if it was not the case that he was given those instructions
> and therefore acted on his own initiative (as indeed he should have
> done), that makes it even more the case that he should be held to
> account.

The firearms officers were given 'information'. Information that was
undoubtedly wrong - but which they had no reason to disbelieve.
>
>>However, I think it's pretty safe to presume that they were authorised to
>>shoot should they have an 'honest belief' that it would be 'reasonable
>>force'.
>
> But the gunman is not to be given the opportunity to prove BRD that
> his *honest belief* was derived from his own observations at the time
> and not from comments/instructions made to him by his superiors; the
> latter of course would be unacceptable as a defence.

You are completely and utterly wrong. The law merely requires that you have
an 'honest belief'. It does not even require that honest belief to be
'reasonable' - and it most certainly does not require that honest belief to
be based on personal observations. You entire argument is based upon a
mistaken premise.
>
> The CPS have decided not to go ahead and are therefore pre-judging
> what a court may decide.
> There appears 'at least' to be a mindset within the CPS that because
> we are talking here of a policeman, we should assume that he did not
> kill the victim out of malice and therefore we should apply softer
> rules to him than say a common murderer and turn the law on its
> head in the process.

Complete cobblers. The CPS are notorious amongst police officers for
refusing to take cases to court - cases which in many cases the officers
feel themselves have an excellent chance of reaching conviction. The
criteria they use is the same no matter who the accused.
>
>>>>> This really gets to the crux of the issue. The defence appears to be
>>>>> that the police gunman *honestly believed* that de Menezes was an
>>>>> imminent threat and had to be killed. But since de Menezes was doing
>>>>> nothing that you or I wouldn't be doing and wasn't wearing a large
>>>>> padded jacket with wires sticking out of it and wasn't running away
>>>>> etc etc - the gunman could only have gotten his *honest belief* from
>>>>> his commander 5 miles away.
>>>>
>>>>Agreed.
>
> Then the matter should go to court.

Why?
>
>>>>> IOW he killed a man based upon false information passed to him.
>>>>> That is not a lawful defence.

Yes it is.

>>>>
>>>>Straw man: no-one AFAIK has claimed having false information is a
>>>>defence.
>>>
>>> Not at all. What I'm saying is that his information was plainly false
>>> but he accepted it and went ahead and killed an innocent man.
>>
>>You have provided no evidence that the information they were given was
>>plainly false to the firearms officers.
>>
>>>>> He has to demonstrate how he arrived at his *honest belief* from
>>>>> first hand information and I don't believe he could possibly do that.

He does not have to prove any such thing!!!!!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>'In order to prosecute those officers, we would have to prove, beyond
>>>>reasonable doubt, that they did not honestly and genuinely hold those
>>>>beliefs. In fact, the evidence supports their claim that they genuinely
>>>>believed that Mr de Menezes was a suicide bomber and therefore, as we
>>>>cannot
>>>>disprove that claim, we cannot prosecute them for murder or any other
>>>>related offence.'
>>>>
>>>><http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/pressreleases/146_06.html>
>>>>
>>>>Something called the 'presumption of innocence'.
>>>
>>> IMV the CPS statement is extremely dishonest AIU the law...
>>>
>>> When you kill someone it is you (not the prosecution) who have to
>>> prove BRD that you held the *honest belief* that the other person
>>> was an imminent threat.
>>
>>_If it gets to court_.
>
> I don't know how the CPS have got away with their statement.

That's because you don't understand the law and have a complete
misunderstanding of 'honest belief' and how it can be formed.
>
>>>The law simply provides *honest belief* as
>>> a defence but that doesn't mean the prosecution need to disprove it.
>>
>>The CPS has said that it wouldn't be able to show the officers could not
>>have genuinely held the honest belief in question. It has nothing else on
>>them hence it isn't proceeding with the prosecution.
>
> Indeed but I repeat that the CPS are turning the law on its head.
> If the matter went to court, I can't believe the gunman could prove
> BRD that his honest belief was derived from his own first hand
> observations as would be required.

It's *NOT* required!!!!

The CPS are asserting that it's
> for the prosecution to disprove their claim.

And they are right.

Uno-Hoo!

Uno-Hoo!

18-07-2006, 01:31 PM

"Richard Miller" <richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:+0aP3PyV5IvEFw2e@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...
> In message <ra3ob2d8lfvugs6bq3u19i2qtfjfkv3qd3@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
> <me8@privacy.net> writes
>
>>It doesn't have to be from first hand information.
>>
>>The law only requires that he did hold that genuine belief. There is no
>>requirement as to how he came to that belief.
>
> The proviso to this comment is that this is something that has developed
> over time through case law. I don't think the point has ever been tested
> whether the honest belief has to have been formed from the killer's own
> observations, or whether he can rely exclusively on something he has been
> told by someone else. I am far from convinced that a belief formed without
> any personal assessment of the situation would give rise to a defence,
> because of the extreme personal onus on anyone who takes another's life to
> justify doing so.
>
> And I am quite certain that if the killer putting forward this defence was
> anyone other than a police officer, the CPS would have proceeded with the
> case.

Possibly - but not simply because 'he was a police officer' - but rather
because of the unique role he was being expected to undertake at the time of
the incident. A role that few people other than police officers would ever
have to undertake.

Uno-Hoo!

hummingbird

18-07-2006, 01:40 PM

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 12:57:37 +0100 'PeteM'
posted this onto uk.politics.misc:

>TD <tdefries@hotmail.com> posted
>>
>>"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>>news:i09pb25eodjv8em7l00v61j25b2uu90fhk@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 08:27:25 +0100 'Richard Miller'
>>> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>>
>>>>No, that is not correct. If the defence raises self-defence and honest
>>>>belief as an issue, the prosecution is required to prove it beyond
>>>>reasonable doubt.
>>>
>>> So it appears the law does not require each person to be accountable
>>> for their actions based upon their own assessment of the circumstances
>>> and is not required to prove BRD that his reasons were justified. Do I
>>> get the feeling that the law is an ass?
>>
>>You should be getting the feeling that this supports the presumption of
>>innocence: i.e. it is for the prosecution to prove BRD that the shooter
>>could not have genuinely held the honest belief.
>>
>
>ISTM two extreme positions are being argued here and both are wrong.
>
>The first position is: (1a) It is impossible to know BRD what a person
>believed at any given moment. (1b) If someone accused of murder claims
>that he honestly believed that the person he killed was about to kill
>him, then he must be acquitted because of (1a) combined with the
>principle of "innocent until proven guilty". (1c) Therefore in order for
>any murder prosecution to fail, the accused need only claim that he
>honestly believed that the person he killed was about to kill him.
>
>The second position is: (2a) Someone against whom a convincing case of
>murder has been made out should be required to produce a credible
>defence, or at least to undermine the prosecution case. (2b) A claim of
>"honest belief" is so easy to fabricate that it is not a credible
>defence to such a serious charge unless proven to be true. (2c)
>Therefore in order for a murder prosecution to fail in these
>circumstances, the accused must prove that he had the required belief.
>
>There is some truth in both of these but ultimately both claim too much.
>As has been pointed out, (1) means you can never convict anybody of
>murder while (2) means that the defendant is faced with the impossible
>task of proving BRD what he believed at the time.
>
>Realistically the situation must be that the accused should be required
>only to produce some plausible evidence that he did hold this belief.
>The prosecution can then try to discredit this, or produce evidence that
>he did not. In the end, the jury has to decide.
>
>Obviously this procedure risks convicting somebody who really did have
>the required belief. That would be a miscarriage of justice, but not all
>that serious. After all the accused is known to have deliberately killed
>someone who was himself entirely innocent, so he can hardly complain
>that life isn't fair.

I would be happy to see the accused provide satisfactory evidence of
his *honest belief* that the suspect posed an imminent threat.

He could for instance claim that the suspect (de Menezes in this case)
jumped over the ticket barriers to get away from police giving chase
and then ran down the staircase and/or was wearing a large padded
jacket with something bulging out of it and/or that he saw a device
under his jacket with wires sticking out of it and/or that he saw a
bulky device wrapped around his waist etc etc.

Any one or combination of those claims would give me good reason to
accept that the police gunman had a reasonable *honest belief* that
dM posed an imminent threat.

In reality the police gunman is unable to make any of those claims
so a claim of honest belief falls flat ...until we take into account
that his superior officers had told him that dM posed an imminent
threat and "must be stopped at all costs".

We now see a picture whereby a police gunman can shoot to kill based
upon information passed to him via crackly radio by a superior office
located 5 miles away and who is only passing on the information given
to her by others. so the gunmanis killing an innocent person based
upon information which is at least 3rd hand.

IMHO that is a totally unacceptable situation.

--
"Blair's inner circle and its ferocious grab for power":
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1747772,00.html

"In the guise of fighting terrorism and maintaining public order,
Tony Blair's Government has quietly and systematically taken power
from Parliament and the British people. The author [Henry Porter]
charts a nine-year assault on civil liberties that reveals the
danger of trading freedom for security":
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1129827.ece

Richard Miller

18-07-2006, 02:01 PM

In message <jffpb2d7bbfg6l2peuljfl4ra96pm0p7n2@4ax.com>, hummingbird
<RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> writes
>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:08:50 +0100 'TD'
>posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>
>>The prosecution has the _burden of proof_, and that's just how it should be.
>
>I have a serious problem with this in the context of the de Menezes
>case as you know.
>

I don't. The prosecution must always have the burden of proving the case
beyond reasonable doubt, even against a police officer.

What I do think, and what I think would satisfy your concerns, is that
in every case, without exception, whether involving a civilian or a
policeman, where the defence to a murder charge depends on a mistaken
belief, that case must be put to the jury; and that in cases involving
the police, the prosecution should generally be in the hands of a
barrister instructed on behalf of the bereaved family.
--
Richard Miller

Richard Miller

18-07-2006, 02:02 PM

In message <BM70yIAtKKvEFwz$@callnetuk.com>, PeteM <Otcbn@callnetuk.com>
writes
>Richard Miller <richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> posted
>>In message <v83ob29gu3m0sr7db1j5oj05icefnsmns9@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
>><me8@privacy.net> writes
>>
>>>There would not be evidence supporting the fact you really did hold
>>>that belief.
>>>
>>>"In fact, the evidence supports their claim that they genuinely
>>>believed that Mr de Menezes was a suicide| bomber"
>>
>>But, fatal to that line of reasoning, the evidence does not support that
>>they believed he actually had a bomb with him on this occasion.
>
>The Menezes' lawyer more or less said this yesterday on the news, so
>clearly they have identified this as a key point. I expect they will
>challenge the CPS's decision through judicial review.
>

I would be astonished if they don't.
--
Richard Miller

Richard Miller

18-07-2006, 02:12 PM

In message <i09pb25eodjv8em7l00v61j25b2uu90fhk@4ax.com>, hummingbird
<RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> writes
>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 08:27:25 +0100 'Richard Miller'
>posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>
>>In message <1bunb2tqe6f0ic026o6oc0l7i9qjfab3ec@4ax.com>, hummingbird
>><RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> writes
>>
>>>When you kill someone it is you (not the prosecution) who have to prove
>>>BRD that you held the *honest belief* that the other person was an
>>>imminent threat. The law simply provides *honest belief* as a defence
>>>but that doesn't mean the prosecution need to disprove it.
>>
>>No, that is not correct. If the defence raises self-defence and honest
>>belief as an issue, the prosecution is required to prove it beyond
>>reasonable doubt.
>
>So it appears the law does not require each person to be accountable
>for their actions based upon their own assessment of the circumstances
>and is not required to prove BRD that his reasons were justified. Do I
>get the feeling that the law is an ass?

I would not say so in this instance, no. It can sound like it when
discussing cases in the abstract, but on any given set of facts, either
it will be obvious that there was a reasonable belief (eg burglar with a
string of convictions found lying dead with a knife in his hand) or it
will be obvious that there was no such reasonable belief (eg husband,
six foot five, 20 stone, claims that his now dead five foot nothing wife
was about to kill him with her bare hands, after just having told him
their marriage was over, so he had to kill her in self-defence with
twenty blows to the head with a baseball bat).

There are very few cases where it could be genuinely uncertain whether
such a reasonable belief existed or not. The only example I can think of
was the Tony Martin case, and with the benefit of his past misuse of
firearms, his pre-stated intention to kill a gypsy and the ballistics
giving a pretty good impression of who was where when the shots were
fired, the jury was able to satisfy itself that he did not have the
belief he claimed.

So the law tends to get it right in practice even though it is difficult
to explain in theory.
--
Richard Miller

18-07-2006, 02:30 PM

"Cynic" <cynic_999@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:g0jpb2pe8rne17b29otq78oho3fp82nqrt@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 22:16:16 +0100, Mike <mike@kempston.net> wrote:
>
>>Have I missed some sublety? I thought those arguing that the shooters
>>behaved properly were arguing precisely that: that possession of false
>>information caused an honest belief that the (false) information was
>>true and that the honest belief so formed is the only and sufficient
>>defence.
>
> The flaw in that argument is that AFAIK there never *was* any
> information passed that stated that Menezes had a bomb and so posed a
> threat.

AFAIK we have not been told what information they were passed.

Scorpius

18-07-2006, 03:07 PM

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 12:34:12 +0100, hummingbird
<RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:

>What's that I hear you say about him having an honest belief that
>de Menezes posed an imminent threat? Prove it!

His supervisor told him so.

--

Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!

Scorpius

18-07-2006, 03:12 PM

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 09:58:21 +0100, PeteM <Otcbn@callnetuk.com> wrote:

>The Menezes' lawyer more or less said this yesterday on the news, so
>clearly they have identified this as a key point. I expect they will
>challenge the CPS's decision through judicial review.

This has all the similarities of the Waco Massacre in Texas. No one
was ever prosecuted. In a later civil trial it was disclosed that the
US Military were very much involved in the whole affair, to the extent
that the Joint Chiefs got daily briefings in the Pentagon.

That never got out in any big way because the govt squashed the
Davidians in the law suit. But it was there for all to see in a
Freedom of Information document published in the Dallas Morning News.

Military involvement in domestic law enforcement is against the law in
the US - called the Posse Comitatus Law. For it to get widely known
that our Military was ultimately responsible for the disaster at Waco
would wreck the recruiting efforts of all the branches.

--

Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!

The Todal

18-07-2006, 03:23 PM

"TD" <tdefries@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e9io6d$m8r$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> "Cynic" <cynic_999@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:g0jpb2pe8rne17b29otq78oho3fp82nqrt@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 22:16:16 +0100, Mike <mike@kempston.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Have I missed some sublety? I thought those arguing that the shooters
>>>behaved properly were arguing precisely that: that possession of false
>>>information caused an honest belief that the (false) information was
>>>true and that the honest belief so formed is the only and sufficient
>>>defence.
>>
>> The flaw in that argument is that AFAIK there never *was* any
>> information passed that stated that Menezes had a bomb and so posed a
>> threat.
>
> AFAIK we have not been told what information they were passed.

It is unreasonable of the Crown Prosecution Service to give their decision
without also giving a full account of the underlying facts. We are expected
to take a great deal on trust.

The scenario that I think is likely, based on what I have seen in the public
domain, is that Cressida Dick ordered the firearms officers to "stop"
Menezes even if it meant terminating his life, though she now says that she
did not give the special code word. The officers therefore went straight to
Menezes, after their colleagues had pointed him out, and shot him without
wasting time enquiring further. They assumed that *others* had identified
him as a bomber. This begs many questions -
a) This "special code word" - would the firearms officers have expected to
hear it, and were they to blame for acting without the code word?
b) The instruction to "stop" him - could it have been implemented in any
other way than by shooting him immediately?
c) Were the officers instructed to follow a protocol whereby they relied
totally on other people to identify the bomber and assess him as a threat to
life? Alternatively, what steps if any did they take to check that he was a
bomber and that there was an imminent threat to life?

The CPS have given an excessively simplistic explanation which is
patronising to the public and I hope it is challenged in court.

Cynic

18-07-2006, 04:20 PM

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:30:17 +0100, "TD" <tdefries@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> The flaw in that argument is that AFAIK there never *was* any
>> information passed that stated that Menezes had a bomb and so posed a
>> threat.
>
>AFAIK we have not been told what information they were passed.

It is likely that we have been told all the major details.

--
Cynic

Cynic

18-07-2006, 04:24 PM

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 13:16:56 +0100, "The Todal" <deadmailbox@beeb.net>
wrote:

>>>But the CPS in this instance has usurped the function of the jury in a
>>>situation where there is sufficient evidence to make a prima facie case.
>>
>> Exactly. In addition, I believe that there is sufficient public
>> interest in putting the issue to a public trial to stop the allegation
>> of "whitewash" that the CPS should have gone ahead even if the chance
>> of a conviction is lower than their usual standards.
>
>It has taken ages for them to announce their decision and I do wonder
>whether they would have been more honest if they had cited "public interest"
>rather than the chances of conviction.
>
>They are probably now waiting anxiously to see if the fuss will die down. I
>think it probably will. If the wellbeing of any government minister is not
>at risk, the government won't intervene.

The timing of the whole thing also gives rise to a suspicion that the
police have said to the government, "If you call off the CPS, we'll
quietly forget about the "cash for honours" investigation ... Deal?"

--
Cynic

hummingbird

18-07-2006, 04:30 PM

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:07:59 GMT 'Scorpius'
posted this onto uk.politics.misc:

>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 12:34:12 +0100, hummingbird
><RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:
>
>>What's that I hear you say about him having an honest belief that
>>de Menezes posed an imminent threat? Prove it!
>
>His supervisor told him so.

Allegedly that maybe so but I find it 100% unacceptable.

--
"Blair's inner circle and its ferocious grab for power":
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1747772,00.html

"In the guise of fighting terrorism and maintaining public order,
Tony Blair's Government has quietly and systematically taken power
from Parliament and the British people. The author [Henry Porter]
charts a nine-year assault on civil liberties that reveals the
danger of trading freedom for security":
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1129827.ece

Mr X

18-07-2006, 04:37 PM

In article <96vpb2pib77agg23cgd77umbn20kjrt8e7@4ax.com>, Cynic
<cynic_999@yahoo.co.uk> writes

>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 13:16:56 +0100, "The Todal" <deadmailbox@beeb.net>
>wrote:
>
>>>>But the CPS in this instance has usurped the function of the jury in a
>>>>situation where there is sufficient evidence to make a prima facie case.
>>>
>>> Exactly. In addition, I believe that there is sufficient public
>>> interest in putting the issue to a public trial to stop the allegation
>>> of "whitewash" that the CPS should have gone ahead even if the chance
>>> of a conviction is lower than their usual standards.
>>
>>It has taken ages for them to announce their decision and I do wonder
>>whether they would have been more honest if they had cited "public interest"
>>rather than the chances of conviction.
>>
>>They are probably now waiting anxiously to see if the fuss will die down. I
>>think it probably will. If the wellbeing of any government minister is not
>>at risk, the government won't intervene.
>
>The timing of the whole thing also gives rise to a suspicion that the
>police have said to the government, "If you call off the CPS, we'll
>quietly forget about the "cash for honours" investigation ... Deal?"

Extremely likely -- and as part of that "process" recent moves by the
police (i.e. Lord Levy, etc) would have just served to "up the ante"

Rather like a poker game.
--
Mr X

Richard Miller

18-07-2006, 05:14 PM

In message <e9io6d$m8r$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>, TD
<tdefries@hotmail.com> writes
>
>"Cynic" <cynic_999@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:g0jpb2pe8rne17b29otq78oho3fp82nqrt@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 22:16:16 +0100, Mike <mike@kempston.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Have I missed some sublety? I thought those arguing that the shooters
>>>behaved properly were arguing precisely that: that possession of false
>>>information caused an honest belief that the (false) information was
>>>true and that the honest belief so formed is the only and sufficient
>>>defence.
>>
>> The flaw in that argument is that AFAIK there never *was* any
>> information passed that stated that Menezes had a bomb and so posed a
>> threat.
>
>AFAIK we have not been told what information they were passed.
>
>

But we can make a pretty good deduction from the CPS statement:

"The two officers who fired the fatal shots did so because they thought
that Mr de Menezes had been identified to them as a suicide bomber and
that if they did not shoot him, he would blow up the train, killing many
people.... In fact, the evidence supports their claim that they
genuinely believed that Mr de Menezes was a suicide bomber."

Now this is probably the most carefully considered and worded statement
since the Attorney-General's advice on the legality of the war in Iraq.

And yet it expressly fails to say that they had been *told* that de
Menezes had a bomb, and fails to say that the evidence supports their
claim of a belief that he would blow up the train.

In the circumstances, the most logical conclusion is that the evidence
does not show that they were told he had a bomb, and does not in any
other way support a belief on their part that he did.
--
Richard Miller

Richard Miller

18-07-2006, 05:19 PM

In message <e9iaht$57m$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>, TD
<tdefries@hotmail.com> writes
>
>"Richard Miller" <richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:tzp7GnvZwIvEFwVk@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <44bbf284$0$3545$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net>, TD
>> <tdefries@hotmail.com> writes
>>
>>>There is no evidence in the public domain that I recall that could show
>>>the firearms officers could not genuinely have an honest belief de Menezes
>>>was a suicide bomber.
>>>
>>>(by suicide bomber I mean someone on a suicide bombing mission)
>>
>> Yes there is.
>>
>> There is the fact that according to the CPS statement, they were not told
>> that he had a bomb.
>
>The CPS statement doesn't mention whether they were told he had a bomb or
>not.

Precisely.

>
>> There is the fact that their own eyes told them that the surveillance
>> officer was tackling the suspect.
>
>I do not see how the tackling is relevant.

Do you or do you not agree that Kratos exists because it is considered
too risky to try to detain a suicide bomber?

If the answer to that question is yes, then it follows that the fact
that the surveillance officer, who had been watching de Menezes for some
time, was attempting to detain him was absolute proof that he was not a
threat.

>
>> There was the fact that their own eyes told them that there was nothing
>> that could be a bomb.
>
>I do not see how you know what their own eyes told them.

What was present at the scene that they could have mistaken for a huge
rucksack bomb of the type used on 7th and 21st July? Absent a rucksack,
he could NOT have been an imminent threat, bearing in mind that the
identification being relied on was that he was one of the would-be
bombers from the previous day.
--
Richard Miller

The Todal

18-07-2006, 05:24 PM

"Mr X" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:hljksAA27PvEFwFt@privacy.net...
> In article <96vpb2pib77agg23cgd77umbn20kjrt8e7@4ax.com>, Cynic
> <cynic_999@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>
>>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 13:16:56 +0100, "The Todal" <deadmailbox@beeb.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>>But the CPS in this instance has usurped the function of the jury in a
>>>>>situation where there is sufficient evidence to make a prima facie
>>>>>case.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly. In addition, I believe that there is sufficient public
>>>> interest in putting the issue to a public trial to stop the allegation
>>>> of "whitewash" that the CPS should have gone ahead even if the chance
>>>> of a conviction is lower than their usual standards.
>>>
>>>It has taken ages for them to announce their decision and I do wonder
>>>whether they would have been more honest if they had cited "public
>>>interest"
>>>rather than the chances of conviction.
>>>
>>>They are probably now waiting anxiously to see if the fuss will die down.
>>>I
>>>think it probably will. If the wellbeing of any government minister is
>>>not
>>>at risk, the government won't intervene.
>>
>>The timing of the whole thing also gives rise to a suspicion that the
>>police have said to the government, "If you call off the CPS, we'll
>>quietly forget about the "cash for honours" investigation ... Deal?"
>
> Extremely likely -- and as part of that "process" recent moves by the
> police (i.e. Lord Levy, etc) would have just served to "up the ante"
>
> Rather like a poker game.

You may be right, but I don't share that view. I still think the police have
the integrity to stand up to political pressure.

The government wants the electorate to believe that Tony Blair, having put
us all in extreme danger with his reckless Iraq invasion, is now doing his
best to protect us all from terrorism. When people respect the police and
feel secure, it helps the government. Blair wants to restore the reputation
of his namesake Sir Ian, by drawing a line under the Menezes affair. A
health and safety prosecution is now a certainty, but that could take months
to come to a conclusion and what happens if the police plead guilty? Will
there actually be an opportunity to uncover all the important details of
Kratos, or will there be a short, uninformative statement of offence (eg
"failing to carry out a proper risk assessment relating to the apprehension
of terrorist suspects") followed by an announcement that the police will pay
a large fine and now wish to draw a line under the whole affair....?

That would then leave only the Inquest as a chance to get at the truth.
Understandably, the family's lawyers want to see the Inquest start as soon
as possible. As for the cash for honours investigation, I hope the Tories
will have the sense and the courage to demand a proper and transparent
investigation. It could yet be Blair's Watergate.

Rob

18-07-2006, 05:25 PM

Uno-Hoo! wrote:
||| And I am quite certain that if the killer putting forward this
||| defence was anyone other than a police officer, the CPS would have
||| proceeded with the case.
||
|| Possibly - but not simply because 'he was a police officer' - but
|| rather because of the unique role he was being expected to undertake
|| at the time of the incident. A role that few people other than
|| police officers would ever have to undertake.

You said this earlier:

"The CPS are notorious amongst police officers for
refusing to take cases to court - cases which in many cases the officers
feel themselves have an excellent chance of reaching conviction. *The
criteria they use is the same no matter who the accused*"

Now you say they 'possibly' applied a different criteria to reach their
decision (with the rather bizarre comment that it's not because they are
police officers, but because they do a police officers job!).

So which of these contradictory claims is true?

--
Rob

18-07-2006, 05:45 PM

"Richard Miller" <richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:rjD6ixOxjQvEFw1p@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...
> In message <e9io6d$m8r$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>, TD
> <tdefries@hotmail.com> writes
>>
>>"Cynic" <cynic_999@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:g0jpb2pe8rne17b29otq78oho3fp82nqrt@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 22:16:16 +0100, Mike <mike@kempston.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Have I missed some sublety? I thought those arguing that the shooters
>>>>behaved properly were arguing precisely that: that possession of false
>>>>information caused an honest belief that the (false) information was
>>>>true and that the honest belief so formed is the only and sufficient
>>>>defence.
>>>
>>> The flaw in that argument is that AFAIK there never *was* any
>>> information passed that stated that Menezes had a bomb and so posed a
>>> threat.
>>
>>AFAIK we have not been told what information they were passed.
>>
>>
>
> But we can make a pretty good deduction from the CPS statement:
>
> "The two officers who fired the fatal shots did so because they thought
> that Mr de Menezes had been identified to them as a suicide bomber and
> that if they did not shoot him, he would blow up the train, killing many
> people.... In fact, the evidence supports their claim that they genuinely
> believed that Mr de Menezes was a suicide bomber."
>
> Now this is probably the most carefully considered and worded statement
> since the Attorney-General's advice on the legality of the war in Iraq.
>
> And yet it expressly fails to say that they had been *told* that de
> Menezes had a bomb, and fails to say that the evidence supports their
> claim of a belief that he would blow up the train.
>
> In the circumstances, the most logical conclusion is that the evidence
> does not show that they were told he had a bomb, and does not in any other
> way support a belief on their part that he did.

I think a major problem lies with the use of the phrase 'suicide bomber'.

Taken literally ISTM it means that the person has a bomb about their person
and is intending to explode it (and himself). Unfortunately it appears to
be used interchangeably with 'suspected terrorist'.

18-07-2006, 05:45 PM

"Cynic" <cynic_999@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:l0vpb2d8s15uajk1da2e99igu79jnmccrb@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:30:17 +0100, "TD" <tdefries@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> The flaw in that argument is that AFAIK there never *was* any
>>> information passed that stated that Menezes had a bomb and so posed a
>>> threat.
>>
>>AFAIK we have not been told what information they were passed.
>
> It is likely that we have been told all the major details.

In the statement or in the press?

18-07-2006, 05:55 PM

"Richard Miller" <richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4T2++QPmoQvEFwV9@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...
> In message <e9iaht$57m$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>, TD
> <tdefries@hotmail.com> writes
>>
>>"Richard Miller" <richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:tzp7GnvZwIvEFwVk@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...
>>> In message <44bbf284$0$3545$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net>, TD
>>> <tdefries@hotmail.com> writes
>>>
>>>>There is no evidence in the public domain that I recall that could show
>>>>the firearms officers could not genuinely have an honest belief de
>>>>Menezes
>>>>was a suicide bomber.
>>>>
>>>>(by suicide bomber I mean someone on a suicide bombing mission)
>>>
>>> Yes there is.
>>>
>>> There is the fact that according to the CPS statement, they were not
>>> told
>>> that he had a bomb.
>>
>>The CPS statement doesn't mention whether they were told he had a bomb or
>>not.
>
> Precisely.
>
>>
>>> There is the fact that their own eyes told them that the surveillance
>>> officer was tackling the suspect.
>>
>>I do not see how the tackling is relevant.
>
> Do you or do you not agree that Kratos exists because it is considered too
> risky to try to detain a suicide bomber?

I'm not trying to be 'funny' but I don't know why Kratos exists nor what it
contains, so I can neither agree nor disagree.

> If the answer to that question is yes, then it follows that the fact that
> the surveillance officer, who had been watching de Menezes for some time,
> was attempting to detain him was absolute proof that he was not a threat.
>
>>> There was the fact that their own eyes told them that there was nothing
>>> that could be a bomb.
>>
>>I do not see how you know what their own eyes told them.
>
> What was present at the scene that they could have mistaken for a huge
> rucksack bomb of the type used on 7th and 21st July? Absent a rucksack, he
> could NOT have been an imminent threat, bearing in mind that the
> identification being relied on was that he was one of the would-be bombers
> from the previous day.

Plenty of people using the Tube carry rucksacks or other bags. I do not
know if there was one near him, nor do I know how much time the firearms
officers had to establish he was a danger to themselves and others.

That is one reason why I hope there is a prosecution, because I do not want
firearms officers shooting people who are clearly no threat and I want to
know that they won't.

18-07-2006, 06:13 PM

"The Todal" <deadmailbox@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:4i497aF1v28iU1@individual.net...
>
> "TD" <tdefries@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:e9io6d$m8r$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
>>
>> "Cynic" <cynic_999@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:g0jpb2pe8rne17b29otq78oho3fp82nqrt@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 22:16:16 +0100, Mike <mike@kempston.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Have I missed some sublety? I thought those arguing that the shooters
>>>>behaved properly were arguing precisely that: that possession of false
>>>>information caused an honest belief that the (false) information was
>>>>true and that the honest belief so formed is the only and sufficient
>>>>defence.
>>>
>>> The flaw in that argument is that AFAIK there never *was* any
>>> information passed that stated that Menezes had a bomb and so posed a
>>> threat.
>>
>> AFAIK we have not been told what information they were passed.
>
> It is unreasonable of the Crown Prosecution Service to give their decision
> without also giving a full account of the underlying facts. We are
> expected to take a great deal on trust.
>
> The scenario that I think is likely, based on what I have seen in the
> public domain, is that Cressida Dick ordered the firearms officers to
> "stop" Menezes even if it meant terminating his life, though she now says
> that she did not give the special code word. The officers therefore went
> straight to Menezes, after their colleagues had pointed him out, and shot
> him without wasting time enquiring further. They assumed that *others* had
> identified him as a bomber. This begs many questions -
> a) This "special code word" - would the firearms officers have expected to
> hear it, and were they to blame for acting without the code word?
> b) The instruction to "stop" him - could it have been implemented in any
> other way than by shooting him immediately?
> c) Were the officers instructed to follow a protocol whereby they relied
> totally on other people to identify the bomber and assess him as a threat
> to life? Alternatively, what steps if any did they take to check that he
> was a bomber and that there was an imminent threat to life?
>
> The CPS have given an excessively simplistic explanation which is
> patronising to the public and I hope it is challenged in court.

FWIW I agree with pretty much all that.

I also note that in the Panorama transcript that Kev frequently refers to, a
Chief Constable Wilding (Head of the Suicide Bomber Working Party) appears
to claim that, in developing Operation Kratos, they had not planned for a
suspect doing something that many if not most Londoners do every weekday
morning - take some form of public transport.

18-07-2006, 06:22 PM

"TD" <tdefries@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e9j4nv$eft$1$830fa7a5@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> "Richard Miller" <richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:4T2++QPmoQvEFwV9@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <e9iaht$57m$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>, TD
>> <tdefries@hotmail.com> writes
>>>
>>>"Richard Miller" <richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>news:tzp7GnvZwIvEFwVk@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...
<snip>
>>>> There was the fact that their own eyes told them that there was nothing
>>>> that could be a bomb.
>>>
>>>I do not see how you know what their own eyes told them.
>>
>> What was present at the scene that they could have mistaken for a huge
>> rucksack bomb of the type used on 7th and 21st July? Absent a rucksack,
>> he could NOT have been an imminent threat, bearing in mind that the
>> identification being relied on was that he was one of the would-be
>> bombers from the previous day.
>
> Plenty of people using the Tube carry rucksacks or other bags. I do not
> know if there was one near him, nor do I know how much time the firearms
> officers had to establish he was a danger to themselves and others.

Suppose one or more of the _surveillance_ team had a rucksack or bag.

<snip>

chippy

18-07-2006, 07:52 PM

Uno-Hoo! wrote:

>
> "Richard Miller" <richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:dkjHjpwwzIvEFwyi@seasalter0.demon.co.uk... >In message
> <sa6ob2l5p1192b9t92qpbn62d8o4d97ae6@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
> <me8@privacy.net> writes
> > > If the CPS thought there was at least a 50:50 chance of success,
> > > then yes.
> > >
> > > If the evidence pointed to it being likely you did believe him to
> > > be an imminent threat, then you would probably not be prosecuted.
> >
> > But just changing the facts slightly to something more akin to the
> > de Menezes case, if he shot his shotgun through the front door at
> > what he believed was someone breaking into his house, and it
> > turned out to be the milkman, he absolutely 100% certainly would
> > be.
>
> And you truly believe that scenario to be 'akin to the Menezes case'?

Allegedly cannot see the clothing the terrorist was wearing, compared
to cannot see the uniform the milkman is wearing? There are comparisons
but I cannot really see anything "akin" to the Menezes case.

--
wigwambam

chippy

18-07-2006, 08:25 PM

Uno-Hoo! wrote:

> > Whatever, if it was not the case that he was given those
> > instructions and therefore acted on his own initiative (as indeed
> > he should have done), that makes it even more the case that he
> > should be held to account.
>
> The firearms officers were given 'information'. Information that was
> undoubtedly wrong - but which they had no reason to disbelieve.

They had the same reason to disbelieve as the person holding on to him,
there was nothing in his appearance that suggested bomber,

> > But the gunman is not to be given the opportunity to prove BRD that
> > his *honest belief* was derived from his own observations at the
> > time and not from comments/instructions made to him by his
> > superiors; the latter of course would be unacceptable as a defence.
>
> You are completely and utterly wrong. The law merely requires that
> you have an 'honest belief'. It does not even require that honest
> belief to be 'reasonable' - and it most certainly does not require
> that honest belief to be based on personal observations. You entire
> argument is based upon a mistaken premise.

It has been pointed out to you many times, you are wrong.
For instance, as silly as it sounds, supervisor tells shooter, that a
dangerous bomber is going to blow a train up and will walk through a
certain door in two minutes. At this time, the shooter has an honest
belief.
In two minutes a little girl walks through the door, should the shooter
shoot now, and why, or why not?

His honest belief will be held in doubt in a court because as it was
not reasonable, it would be held that it was not an honest belief.

> > The CPS have decided not to go ahead and are therefore pre-judging
> > what a court may decide.
> > There appears 'at least' to be a mindset within the CPS that because
> > we are talking here of a policeman, we should assume that he did not
> > kill the victim out of malice and therefore we should apply softer
> > rules to him than say a common murderer and turn the law on its
> > head in the process.
>
> Complete cobblers. The CPS are notorious amongst police officers for
> refusing to take cases to court - cases which in many cases the
> officers feel themselves have an excellent chance of reaching
> conviction. The criteria they use is the same no matter who the
> accused.

But you say in another post, that the police are afforded a special
consideration due to the role they undertake. (no pun)

> > Then the matter should go to court.
>
> Why?

Groan.

--
wigwambam

chippy

18-07-2006, 08:40 PM

Uno-Hoo! wrote:
>
> Sorry but he has to do nothing of the sort. He merely has to show
> that he has an honest belief. He does not even have to show that that
> honest belief was reasonable. He most certainly does not have to show
> that he arrived at the honest belief via first hand information
> because the law does not require that.

Right, so all the police officer has to say, is "I have honest belief"
then clam up, and not say why?
Obviously a member of the public would have to say why he held that
belief, but a police officer would not.

--
wigwambam

Alex Heney

18-07-2006, 10:09 PM

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 09:19:24 +0100, hummingbird
<RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 22:15:13 +0100 'Alex Heney'
>posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>
>>On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 20:56:38 +0100, "Chris X"
>><Chris_X2006@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>>>news:c4qnb21s7fujeghl4javatjkvlep60kv4o@4ax.com...
>><snip>
>>
>>>>
>>>> I'll re-phrase that: "he was ordered to stop de Menezes at all costs".
>>>> AIUI the last words from Cressida Dick to her gunmen before she lost
>>>> contact was "stop him at all costs". IIUC the gunman took that to be
>>>> an order to kill. After all, he's a paid gunman - that's what he does.
>>>>
>>>> This really gets to the crux of the issue. The defence appears to be
>>>> that the police gunman *honestly believed* that de Menezes was an
>>>> imminent threat and had to be killed. But since de Menezes was doing
>>>> nothing that you or I wouldn't be doing and wasn't wearing a large
>>>> padded jacket with wires sticking out of it and wasn't running away
>>>> etc etc - the gunman could only have gotten his *honest belief* from
>>>> his commander 5 miles away.
>>>>
>>>> IOW he killed a man based upon false information passed to him.
>>>> That is not a lawful defence.
>>>>
>>>> He has to demonstrate how he arrived at his *honest belief* from
>>>> first hand information and I don't believe he could possibly do that.
>>>
>>>Very good points !
>>>
>>
>>Good points morally, perhaps.
>>
>>But all wrong in law :-(
>
>You need to explain how.
>Afaik a defence of *honest belief* is available under the law but it's
>for the defence to prove, not the prosecution.

You have stated this repeatedly, but you are simply wrong.

The burden of proof is on the prosecution. (and you might note that I
am by no means the only one telling you this - some of the others are
lawyers).
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
How do you write zero in Roman numerals?
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Alex Heney

18-07-2006, 10:10 PM

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 08:57:19 GMT, spam@spamcop.net (Scorpius) wrote:

>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 09:19:24 +0100, hummingbird
><RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:
>
>>Afaik a defence of *honest belief* is available under the law but it's
>>for the defence to prove, not the prosecution.
>
>In Common Law the defense does not have to prove anything - it is the
>job of the state to prove that the defendant is guilty.
>
>In Corpus Juris, the defense has to prove the defendant is innocent.

So all the time you have been saying that is what we have in Britain,
you have been lying.

Actually, you are wrong here anyhow, that is no more (or less) true of
Corpus Juris than it is of Common Law.

The more you talk about "Corpus Juris", the more I realise you just
don't have a clue what it means.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Circular Definition: see Definition, Circular.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Alex Heney

18-07-2006, 10:12 PM

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 12:34:12 +0100, hummingbird
<RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 08:57:19 GMT 'Scorpius'
>posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>
>>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 09:19:24 +0100, hummingbird
>><RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Afaik a defence of *honest belief* is available under the law but it's
>>>for the defence to prove, not the prosecution.
>
>>In Common Law the defense does not have to prove anything - it is the
>>job of the state to prove that the defendant is guilty.
>
>Yes I appreciate that.

You obviously don't, from your response.

>So in this case I find the police gunman guilty of murder because
>he shot and killed de Menezes .....and he doesn't even deny it.
>
>What's that I hear you say about him having an honest belief that
>de Menezes posed an imminent threat? Prove it!
>

To which the response of the defence would be "I don't have to. You
prove I didn't believe that".

I have no idea why you think the burden of proof might be reversed in
this situation.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Modern man is the missing link between apes and human beings.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Alex Heney

18-07-2006, 10:14 PM

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 16:30:06 +0100, hummingbird
<RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:07:59 GMT 'Scorpius'
>posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>
>>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 12:34:12 +0100, hummingbird
>><RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:
>>
>>>What's that I hear you say about him having an honest belief that
>>>de Menezes posed an imminent threat? Prove it!
>>
>>His supervisor told him so.
>
>Allegedly that maybe so but I find it 100% unacceptable.

You may do.

I may do.

But that is the law.

And it is up to the prosecution to prove that he did not genuinely
hold that belief, *regardless* of the reason he may claim for coming
to that belief.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Modern man is the missing link between apes and human beings.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Alex Heney

18-07-2006, 10:15 PM

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 08:25:36 +0100, Richard Miller
<richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <sa6ob2l5p1192b9t92qpbn62d8o4d97ae6@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
><me8@privacy.net> writes
>>If the CPS thought there was at least a 50:50 chance of success, then
>>yes.
>>
>>If the evidence pointed to it being likely you *did* believe him to be
>>an imminent threat, then you would probably not be prosecuted.
>
>But just changing the facts slightly to something more akin to the de
>Menezes case, if he shot his shotgun through the front door at what he
>believed was someone breaking into his house, and it turned out to be
>the milkman, he absolutely 100% certainly would be.

Yes, but that is a lot further away from the De Menezes case than your
previous suggestion. I can't think why you suggest it is "more akin".
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
It works better if you plug it in.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Alex Heney

18-07-2006, 10:18 PM

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 08:23:51 +0100, Richard Miller
<richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <v83ob29gu3m0sr7db1j5oj05icefnsmns9@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
><me8@privacy.net> writes
>
>>There would not be evidence supporting the fact you really did hold
>>that belief.
>>
>>"In fact, the evidence supports their claim that they genuinely
>>believed that Mr de Menezes was a suicide| bomber"
>
>But, fatal to that line of reasoning, the evidence does not support that
>they believed he actually had a bomb with him on this occasion.

So you think the CPS were lying.

They were satisfied that the evidence indicated that the shooters
*did* believe that he was a terrorist. (and in that context, believing
he was a terrorist only makes sense if that means "a terrorist on a
mission" to use your phrase.)
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Check book: a book with a unhappy ending.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Alex Heney

18-07-2006, 10:24 PM

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 09:50:14 +0100, hummingbird
<RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 23:22:18 +0100 'TD'
>posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>
<snip>

>
>>However, I think it's pretty safe to presume that they were authorised to
>>shoot should they have an 'honest belief' that it would be 'reasonable
>>force'.
>
>But the gunman is not to be given the opportunity to prove BRD that
>his *honest belief* was derived from his own observations at the time
>and not from comments/instructions made to him by his superiors;

While a jury trial would give him the *opportunity* to say why he
believed that, it the only thing a jury trial could prove BRD would be
that he did not hold it.

Acquittals do not need the defendant to be innocent BRD. They only
require that there is reasonable doubt about his guilt.

>the
>latter of course would be unacceptable as a defence.

To you.

Not to the law.

>
>The CPS have decided not to go ahead and are therefore pre-judging
>what a court may decide.
>There appears 'at least' to be a mindset within the CPS that because
>we are talking here of a policeman, we should assume that he did not
>kill the victim out of malice and therefore we should apply softer
>rules to him than say a common murderer and turn the law on its
>head in the process.
>

By applying the exact same rules, you man.

Yes.

They *should* of course, apply tougher rules, although they should
still not prosecute if there is NO realistic chance of success.

>>>
>>> IMV the CPS statement is extremely dishonest AIU the law...
>>>
>>> When you kill someone it is you (not the prosecution) who have to
>>> prove BRD that you held the *honest belief* that the other person
>>> was an imminent threat.
>>
>>_If it gets to court_.
>
>I don't know how the CPS have got away with their statement.
>

that is because your belief regarding who has to prove what is simply
false.

>>>The law simply provides *honest belief* as
>>> a defence but that doesn't mean the prosecution need to disprove it.
>>
>>The CPS has said that it wouldn't be able to show the officers could not
>>have genuinely held the honest belief in question. It has nothing else on
>>them hence it isn't proceeding with the prosecution.
>
>Indeed but I repeat that the CPS are turning the law on its head.
>If the matter went to court, I can't believe the gunman could prove
>BRD that his honest belief was derived from his own first hand
>observations as would be required. The CPS are asserting that it's
>for the prosecution to disprove their claim.

Correctly.

That *IS* the law.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
A little inaccuracy sometimes saves tons of explanation.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Mike

18-07-2006, 10:29 PM

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 13:12:02 +0100, "Uno-Hoo!"
<Uno-Hoo@NOSPAMbigfootdotcom> wrote:

>Sorry but he has to do nothing of the sort. He merely has to show that he
>has an honest belief. He does not even have to show that that honest belief
>was reasonable. He most certainly does not have to show that he arrived at
>the honest belief via first hand information because the law does not
>require that.

Excuse me being blunt, but readers may wish to place rather more
reliance on the opinion of the respected lawyers who are posting to
this thread than on the opinion of a retired traffic inspector from
the sticks who thinks he knows the law better than the lawyers.

Mike.

--
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

Alex Heney

18-07-2006, 10:38 PM

On 18 Jul 2006 19:25:59 GMT, "chippy" <chippy@wood.co.uk> wrote:

>Uno-Hoo! wrote:
>
>> > Whatever, if it was not the case that he was given those
>> > instructions and therefore acted on his own initiative (as indeed
>> > he should have done), that makes it even more the case that he
>> > should be held to account.
>>
>> The firearms officers were given 'information'. Information that was
>> undoubtedly wrong - but which they had no reason to disbelieve.
>
>They had the same reason to disbelieve as the person holding on to him,
>there was nothing in his appearance that suggested bomber,
>

Of course they didn't have the same reasons to disbelieve.

The person holding him had been trailing him for some time, as part of
the surveillance team. He had *plenty* of tie to decide that he was
not carrying a bomb, and indeed was probably not even the right
person.

The firearms officers knew nothing about him except what they had been
told over the radio, and then their first sight of him is of him
apparently struggling with a colleague of theirs.

>
>> > But the gunman is not to be given the opportunity to prove BRD that
>> > his *honest belief* was derived from his own observations at the
>> > time and not from comments/instructions made to him by his
>> > superiors; the latter of course would be unacceptable as a defence.
>>
>> You are completely and utterly wrong. The law merely requires that
>> you have an 'honest belief'. It does not even require that honest
>> belief to be 'reasonable' - and it most certainly does not require
>> that honest belief to be based on personal observations. You entire
>> argument is based upon a mistaken premise.
>
>It has been pointed out to you many times, you are wrong.

Only by people who don't know the law.

He is absolutely correct.

>For instance, as silly as it sounds, supervisor tells shooter, that a
>dangerous bomber is going to blow a train up and will walk through a
>certain door in two minutes. At this time, the shooter has an honest
>belief.
>In two minutes a little girl walks through the door, should the shooter
>shoot now, and why, or why not?
>
>His honest belief will be held in doubt in a court because as it was
>not reasonable, it would be held that it was not an honest belief.
>

Almost certainly.

But not *just* because it was not reasonable.

Because it had been shown BRD that he did not genuinely hold that
belief.

The reasonableness or otherwise will obviously be a significant factor
in that proof, but it cannot be the only factor.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Kleptomania: take something for it
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Alex Heney

18-07-2006, 10:39 PM

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 13:31:34 +0100, "Uno-Hoo!"
<Uno-Hoo@NOSPAMbigfootdotcom> wrote:

>
>"Richard Miller" <richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:+0aP3PyV5IvEFw2e@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <ra3ob2d8lfvugs6bq3u19i2qtfjfkv3qd3@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
>> <me8@privacy.net> writes
>>
>>>It doesn't have to be from first hand information.
>>>
>>>The law only requires that he did hold that genuine belief. There is no
>>>requirement as to how he came to that belief.
>>
>> The proviso to this comment is that this is something that has developed
>> over time through case law. I don't think the point has ever been tested
>> whether the honest belief has to have been formed from the killer's own
>> observations, or whether he can rely exclusively on something he has been
>> told by someone else. I am far from convinced that a belief formed without
>> any personal assessment of the situation would give rise to a defence,
>> because of the extreme personal onus on anyone who takes another's life to
>> justify doing so.
>>
>> And I am quite certain that if the killer putting forward this defence was
>> anyone other than a police officer, the CPS would have proceeded with the
>> case.
>
>Possibly - but not simply because 'he was a police officer' - but rather
>because of the unique role he was being expected to undertake at the time of
>the incident. A role that few people other than police officers would ever
>have to undertake.
>

That should not lead to any special consideration when deciding
whether to prosecute.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Man who run behind car get exhausted.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Alex Heney

18-07-2006, 10:53 PM

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 10:09:28 +0100, hummingbird
<RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 08:27:25 +0100 'Richard Miller'
>posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>
>>In message <1bunb2tqe6f0ic026o6oc0l7i9qjfab3ec@4ax.com>, hummingbird
>><RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> writes
>>
>>>When you kill someone it is you (not the prosecution) who have to prove
>>>BRD that you held the *honest belief* that the other person was an
>>>imminent threat. The law simply provides *honest belief* as a defence
>>>but that doesn't mean the prosecution need to disprove it.
>>
>>No, that is not correct. If the defence raises self-defence and honest
>>belief as an issue, the prosecution is required to prove it beyond
>>reasonable doubt.
>
>So it appears the law does not require each person to be accountable
>for their actions based upon their own assessment of the circumstances
>and is not required to prove BRD that his reasons were justified.

That is correct.

>Do I
>get the feeling that the law is an ass?
>

I suspect you do. I am sure there are people who agree with you :-)

>>>Otherwise every murderer would simply claim *honest belief* and walk
>>>free because it's virtually impossible to disprove.
>>
>>I don't think so. There are very few cases in which such a claim would
>>be credible.
>
>In cases where this defence is claimed, ISTM the obligation is upon
>the accused to prove, not the prosecution.

The accused merely has to adduce sufficient evidence to show that
there is that possibility. i.e it must be at least somewhat credible
that he could have held that belief.

If he does that, then it is up to the prosecution to show that the
possibility was not actually fact.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Alex Heney

18-07-2006, 11:02 PM

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 15:23:55 +0100, "The Todal" <deadmailbox@beeb.net>
wrote:

<snip>

>
>It is unreasonable of the Crown Prosecution Service to give their decision
>without also giving a full account of the underlying facts. We are expected
>to take a great deal on trust.
>
>The scenario that I think is likely, based on what I have seen in the public
>domain, is that Cressida Dick ordered the firearms officers to "stop"
>Menezes even if it meant terminating his life, though she now says that she
>did not give the special code word. The officers therefore went straight to
>Menezes, after their colleagues had pointed him out, and shot him without
>wasting time enquiring further. They assumed that *others* had identified
>him as a bomber. This begs many questions -
>a) This "special code word" - would the firearms officers have expected to
>hear it, and were they to blame for acting without the code word?
>b) The instruction to "stop" him - could it have been implemented in any
>other way than by shooting him immediately?
>c) Were the officers instructed to follow a protocol whereby they relied
>totally on other people to identify the bomber and assess him as a threat to
>life? Alternatively, what steps if any did they take to check that he was a
>bomber and that there was an imminent threat to life?
>
>The CPS have given an excessively simplistic explanation which is
>patronising to the public and I hope it is challenged in court.
>

There is an ongoing prosecution, which could be prejudiced by giving
out these details at this stage.

They will surely come out during the court case.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Abandon all hope ye who have entered cyberspace.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Alex Heney

18-07-2006, 11:05 PM

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 17:14:41 +0100, Richard Miller
<richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <e9io6d$m8r$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>, TD
><tdefries@hotmail.com> writes
>>
>>"Cynic" <cynic_999@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:g0jpb2pe8rne17b29otq78oho3fp82nqrt@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 22:16:16 +0100, Mike <mike@kempston.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Have I missed some sublety? I thought those arguing that the shooters
>>>>behaved properly were arguing precisely that: that possession of false
>>>>information caused an honest belief that the (false) information was
>>>>true and that the honest belief so formed is the only and sufficient
>>>>defence.
>>>
>>> The flaw in that argument is that AFAIK there never *was* any
>>> information passed that stated that Menezes had a bomb and so posed a
>>> threat.
>>
>>AFAIK we have not been told what information they were passed.
>>
>>
>
>But we can make a pretty good deduction from the CPS statement:
>
>"The two officers who fired the fatal shots did so because they thought
>that Mr de Menezes had been identified to them as a suicide bomber and
>that if they did not shoot him, he would blow up the train, killing many
>people.... In fact, the evidence supports their claim that they
>genuinely believed that Mr de Menezes was a suicide bomber."
>
>Now this is probably the most carefully considered and worded statement
>since the Attorney-General's advice on the legality of the war in Iraq.
>
>And yet it expressly fails to say that they had been *told* that de
>Menezes had a bomb, and fails to say that the evidence supports their
>claim of a belief that he would blow up the train.
>
>In the circumstances, the most logical conclusion is that the evidence
>does not show that they were told he had a bomb, and does not in any
>other way support a belief on their part that he did.

Sorry, but I disagree entirely.

"the evidence supports their claim that they genuinely believed that
Mr de Menezes was a suicide bomber."

To me, "he was a suicide bomber" means he had a bomb. I cannot see a
reasonable way to interpret that as the evidence not supporting their
claim.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
To err is human. To blame someone else is politics.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Richard Miller

18-07-2006, 11:06 PM

In message <fjjqb294tekd7es2crm44p82ut41f8gvfn@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
<me8@privacy.net> writes
>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 12:34:12 +0100, hummingbird
><RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:
>
>
>>So in this case I find the police gunman guilty of murder because
>>he shot and killed de Menezes .....and he doesn't even deny it.
>>
>>What's that I hear you say about him having an honest belief that
>>de Menezes posed an imminent threat? Prove it!
>>
>
>To which the response of the defence would be "I don't have to. You
>prove I didn't believe that".
>
>
>I have no idea why you think the burden of proof might be reversed in
>this situation.

True.

But that is the point when I say, "No one said he had a bomb. The
surveillance guy did not think he had a bomb, and was restraining him.
There was no rucksack or anything else that could conceivably have been
a bomb. And you refused to say anything until you had had a chance to
confer with your lawyers and check what you would have had to believe to
escape a murder charge.

"I put it to you that you did believe that dM was a terrorist, but that
you did not know or care whether he actually had a bomb with him."

If the defendant says nothing to that, chooses in fact not to give
evidence, do you really not think that a jury would be entitled to
convict?
--
Richard Miller

Richard Miller

18-07-2006, 11:08 PM

In message <sqjqb2hak9dh95s8i48r5k3t8pkmm9mimh@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
<me8@privacy.net> writes
>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 08:25:36 +0100, Richard Miller
><richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <sa6ob2l5p1192b9t92qpbn62d8o4d97ae6@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
>><me8@privacy.net> writes
>>>If the CPS thought there was at least a 50:50 chance of success, then
>>>yes.
>>>
>>>If the evidence pointed to it being likely you *did* believe him to be
>>>an imminent threat, then you would probably not be prosecuted.
>>
>>But just changing the facts slightly to something more akin to the de
>>Menezes case, if he shot his shotgun through the front door at what he
>>believed was someone breaking into his house, and it turned out to be
>>the milkman, he absolutely 100% certainly would be.
>
>Yes, but that is a lot further away from the De Menezes case than your
>previous suggestion. I can't think why you suggest it is "more akin".

Because in the burglar case, the mere fact of him being in the house
justifies a belief that he is at least something of a threat. The fact
the dM was sitting quietly on a train did not give any reason to believe
he was a threat. So it is more akin because it gives the killer the same
lack of reason to believe the deceased was a threat.
--
Richard Miller

Richard Miller

18-07-2006, 11:09 PM

In message <4tjqb256la6agfej0bc4co4i9fmfc8jf64@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
<me8@privacy.net> writes
>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 08:23:51 +0100, Richard Miller
><richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <v83ob29gu3m0sr7db1j5oj05icefnsmns9@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
>><me8@privacy.net> writes
>>
>>>There would not be evidence supporting the fact you really did hold
>>>that belief.
>>>
>>>"In fact, the evidence supports their claim that they genuinely
>>>believed that Mr de Menezes was a suicide| bomber"
>>
>>But, fatal to that line of reasoning, the evidence does not support that
>>they believed he actually had a bomb with him on this occasion.
>
>So you think the CPS were lying.
>
>They were satisfied that the evidence indicated that the shooters
>*did* believe that he was a terrorist. (and in that context, believing
>he was a terrorist only makes sense if that means "a terrorist on a
>mission" to use your phrase.)

It absolutely does not imply that. Osman was and is always Osman even
when he is not carrying a bomb.
--
Richard Miller

Alex Heney

18-07-2006, 11:10 PM

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 08:22:01 +0100, Richard Miller
<richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <44bbf284$0$3545$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net>, TD
><tdefries@hotmail.com> writes
>
>>There is no evidence in the public domain that I recall that could show
>>the firearms officers could not genuinely have an honest belief de
>>Menezes was a suicide bomber.
>>
>>(by suicide bomber I mean someone on a suicide bombing mission)
>
>Yes there is.
>
>There is the fact that according to the CPS statement, they were not
>told that he had a bomb.
>

The CPS statement said no such thing.

That is your, rather tortuous, interpretation of the lack of a few
words in one place, where they were IMO unnecessary.

>There is the fact that their own eyes told them that the surveillance
>officer was tackling the suspect.
>

This makes it *far* more likely that they would believe he did have a
bomb, IMO.

>There was the fact that their own eyes told them that there was nothing
>that could be a bomb.
>

Possibly, IF they had taken the time to look around while the
surveillance officer was struggling with the suspect.

>Those three facts would entitle a properly-instructed jury to conclude
>that the officers did not have an honest belief that de Menezes was an
>immediate threat such that lethal force was warranted.
>
>It may be that after hearing all the evidence from both sides, they
>would conclude that in fact the officers *did* hold such an honest
>belief, and that they should be acquitted.
>
>But the CPS in this instance has usurped the function of the jury in a
>situation where there is sufficient evidence to make a prima facie case.

I doubt that.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
....On the other hand, you have different fingers.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Rob

18-07-2006, 11:12 PM

Alex Heney wrote:
|||
||| The CPS have given an excessively simplistic explanation which is
||| patronising to the public and I hope it is challenged in court.
|||
||
|| There is an ongoing prosecution, which could be prejudiced by giving
|| out these details at this stage.
||
|| They will surely come out during the court case.

Not if the Met plead guilty.

--
Rob

Alex Heney

18-07-2006, 11:14 PM

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 17:19:50 +0100, Richard Miller
<richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <e9iaht$57m$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>, TD
><tdefries@hotmail.com> writes
>>
>>"Richard Miller" <richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:tzp7GnvZwIvEFwVk@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...
>>> In message <44bbf284$0$3545$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net>, TD
>>> <tdefries@hotmail.com> writes
>>>
>>>>There is no evidence in the public domain that I recall that could show
>>>>the firearms officers could not genuinely have an honest belief de Menezes
>>>>was a suicide bomber.
>>>>
>>>>(by suicide bomber I mean someone on a suicide bombing mission)
>>>
>>> Yes there is.
>>>
>>> There is the fact that according to the CPS statement, they were not told
>>> that he had a bomb.
>>
>>The CPS statement doesn't mention whether they were told he had a bomb or
>>not.
>
>Precisely.
>

Precisely nothing.

The CPS statement said they believed he did. It also said the evidence
supports their claim regarding that belief.

>>
>>> There is the fact that their own eyes told them that the surveillance
>>> officer was tackling the suspect.
>>
>>I do not see how the tackling is relevant.
>
>Do you or do you not agree that Kratos exists because it is considered
>too risky to try to detain a suicide bomber?
>
>If the answer to that question is yes, then it follows that the fact
>that the surveillance officer, who had been watching de Menezes for some
>time, was attempting to detain him was absolute proof that he was not a
>threat.

Or absolute proof that he was such an imminent threat that the
surveillance officer had no choice but to tackle him.

In other words, it is not absolute proof of anything.

>>
>>> There was the fact that their own eyes told them that there was nothing
>>> that could be a bomb.
>>
>>I do not see how you know what their own eyes told them.
>
>What was present at the scene that they could have mistaken for a huge
>rucksack bomb of the type used on 7th and 21st July? Absent a rucksack,
>he could NOT have been an imminent threat, bearing in mind that the
>identification being relied on was that he was one of the would-be
>bombers from the previous day.

As TD said, you do not know what their eyes told them.

You know what they would have seen when they looked around the scene
afterwards;.

You do NOT know what they saw, or more importantly, what they took in
at the time.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Keyboard Not Found - Press [F1] to Continue
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Alex Heney

18-07-2006, 11:17 PM

On 18 Jul 2006 19:40:00 GMT, "chippy" <chippy@wood.co.uk> wrote:

>Uno-Hoo! wrote:
>>
>> Sorry but he has to do nothing of the sort. He merely has to show
>> that he has an honest belief. He does not even have to show that that
>> honest belief was reasonable. He most certainly does not have to show
>> that he arrived at the honest belief via first hand information
>> because the law does not require that.
>
>Right, so all the police officer has to say, is "I have honest belief"
>then clam up, and not say why?
>Obviously a member of the public would have to say why he held that
>belief, but a police officer would not.

He will have to adduce sufficient evidence to show that he *could*
have held that belief.

It is then up to the prosecution to show he didn't.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
If winning isn't important then why keep score?
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

hummingbird

18-07-2006, 11:23 PM

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 22:12:49 +0100 'Alex Heney'
posted this onto uk.politics.misc:

>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 12:34:12 +0100, hummingbird
><RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 08:57:19 GMT 'Scorpius'
>>posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>
>>>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 09:19:24 +0100, hummingbird
>>><RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Afaik a defence of *honest belief* is available under the law but it's
>>>>for the defence to prove, not the prosecution.
>>
>>>In Common Law the defense does not have to prove anything - it is the
>>>job of the state to prove that the defendant is guilty.
>>
>>Yes I appreciate that.
>
>You obviously don't, from your response.

No, I'm saying that the presumption of innocence is fine but when a
police gunman kills an innocent civilian and does not deny it, there
must be clear accountability. Prima facie evidence says he's guilty.
If you like, he was caught red-handed with a smoking gun.

I'm prepared to accept a plea of honest belief providing it was formed
by the gunman from personal assessment of the circumstances - not from
information passed to him 2nd or 3rd hand - and stands up to scrutiny
in a court.

IOW the legal situation which should exist is that each person who
kills is directly responsible for his/her actions, irrespective of
what he may be told by his boss.

The present situation is that the police are being allowed to use
their gunmen as *death squads* who are then not responsible for their
actions, since any one of them can simply claim honest belief based
upon information passed to him by his boss.

Can you see what I'm getting at?

--
"Blair's inner circle and its ferocious grab for power":
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1747772,00.html

"In the guise of fighting terrorism and maintaining public order,
Tony Blair's Government has quietly and systematically taken power
from Parliament and the British people. The author [Henry Porter]
charts a nine-year assault on civil liberties that reveals the
danger of trading freedom for security":
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1129827.ece

hummingbird

18-07-2006, 11:41 PM

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:01:49 +0100 'Richard Miller'
posted this onto uk.politics.misc:

>In message <jffpb2d7bbfg6l2peuljfl4ra96pm0p7n2@4ax.com>, hummingbird
><RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> writes
>>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:08:50 +0100 'TD'
>>posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>>
>>>The prosecution has the _burden of proof_, and that's just how it should be.
>>
>>I have a serious problem with this in the context of the de Menezes
>>case as you know.
>>
>
>I don't. The prosecution must always have the burden of proving the case
>beyond reasonable doubt, even against a police officer.

I have no problem with that at all. But when a police gunman kills an
innocent person going about his lawful business - and does not deny it
- he is fundamentally guilty. Caught red-handed if you like.

However, I'm prepared to accept a plea of honest belief from the
policeman providing it was formed by him from his personal assessment
of the circumstances - not from information passed to him 2nd or 3rd
hand - and that it stands up to scrutiny in a court.

So a claim of honest belief in the de Menezes case would not stand up
in court if the policeman claimed he formed an honest belief when he
saw the suspect wearing a padded jacket with wires sticking out of it
and a bulky device strapped around his waist etc because we know that
was in fact untrue, despite reports to the contrary at the time.

IOW the legal situation which should exist is that each person who
kills must be directly responsible for his/her actions, irrespective
of what he may be told by his boss.

The present situation is that the police are being allowed to use
their gunmen as *death squads* who are then not responsible for their
actions, since any one of them can simply claim honest belief based
upon information passed to him by his boss. This reduces the police
shooter to little more than an a thug with a gun, licensed to kill.

>What I do think, and what I think would satisfy your concerns, is that
>in every case, without exception, whether involving a civilian or a
>policeman, where the defence to a murder charge depends on a mistaken
>belief, that case must be put to the jury; and that in cases involving
>the police, the prosecution should generally be in the hands of a
>barrister instructed on behalf of the bereaved family.

That doesn't satisfy my fundamental belief that each person who kills
another - policeman or not - must be directly accountable for his
actions and must not be allowed to hide behind a defence of honest
belief based upon information passed to him by his boss.
He must form his own honest belief and be prepared to stand it up in
court for scrutiny.

What we saw yesterday was the direct consequence of this not being
the legal position. It is nothing less than an attack on democratic
accountability and is the sort of sham which we expect to see in
dictatorships and lawless countries.

--
"Blair's inner circle and its ferocious grab for power":
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1747772,00.html

"In the guise of fighting terrorism and maintaining public order,
Tony Blair's Government has quietly and systematically taken power
from Parliament and the British people. The author [Henry Porter]
charts a nine-year assault on civil liberties that reveals the
danger of trading freedom for security":
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1129827.ece

hummingbird

18-07-2006, 11:43 PM

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 22:09:12 +0100 'Alex Heney'
posted this onto uk.politics.misc:

>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 09:19:24 +0100, hummingbird
><RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 22:15:13 +0100 'Alex Heney'
>>posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>
>>>On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 20:56:38 +0100, "Chris X"
>>><Chris_X2006@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:c4qnb21s7fujeghl4javatjkvlep60kv4o@4ax.com...
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll re-phrase that: "he was ordered to stop de Menezes at all costs".
>>>>> AIUI the last words from Cressida Dick to her gunmen before she lost
>>>>> contact was "stop him at all costs". IIUC the gunman took that to be
>>>>> an order to kill. After all, he's a paid gunman - that's what he does.
>>>>>
>>>>> This really gets to the crux of the issue. The defence appears to be
>>>>> that the police gunman *honestly believed* that de Menezes was an
>>>>> imminent threat and had to be killed. But since de Menezes was doing
>>>>> nothing that you or I wouldn't be doing and wasn't wearing a large
>>>>> padded jacket with wires sticking out of it and wasn't running away
>>>>> etc etc - the gunman could only have gotten his *honest belief* from
>>>>> his commander 5 miles away.
>>>>>
>>>>> IOW he killed a man based upon false information passed to him.
>>>>> That is not a lawful defence.
>>>>>
>>>>> He has to demonstrate how he arrived at his *honest belief* from
>>>>> first hand information and I don't believe he could possibly do that.
>>>>
>>>>Very good points !
>>>>
>>>
>>>Good points morally, perhaps.
>>>
>>>But all wrong in law :-(
>>
>>You need to explain how.
>>Afaik a defence of *honest belief* is available under the law but it's
>>for the defence to prove, not the prosecution.
>
>You have stated this repeatedly, but you are simply wrong.
>
>The burden of proof is on the prosecution. (and you might note that I
>am by no means the only one telling you this - some of the others are
>lawyers).

Sequence of posts problems...
But I thought this issue was debated months ago and that it was
clearly the defence duty to prove their honest belief - apparently
not.

Forgive me for thinking that we live in an accountable democracy.

--
"Blair's inner circle and its ferocious grab for power":
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1747772,00.html

"In the guise of fighting terrorism and maintaining public order,
Tony Blair's Government has quietly and systematically taken power
from Parliament and the British people. The author [Henry Porter]
charts a nine-year assault on civil liberties that reveals the
danger of trading freedom for security":
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1129827.ece

hummingbird

18-07-2006, 11:50 PM

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 10:44:24 +0100 'TD'
posted this onto uk.politics.misc:

>"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>news:tf7pb29mm4egdl8170jqhcatd08d9tu9gf@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 23:22:18 +0100 'TD'
>> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>
>>>"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1bunb2tqe6f0ic026o6oc0l7i9qjfab3ec@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:26:47 +0100 'TD'
>>>> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>>>
>>>>>"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:c4qnb21s7fujeghl4javatjkvlep60kv4o@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:12:07 +0100 'TD'
>>>>>> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:06fnb21s6366esoiqm6n9qlm16jtjvg12h@4ax.com...
><sip>
>>>>>>>> AIUI the gunman shot de Menezes because he had been ordered to,
>>>>>>>> not because he thought he presented an imminent threat.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Please cite.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll re-phrase that: "he was ordered to stop de Menezes at all costs".
>>>>>> AIUI the last words from Cressida Dick to her gunmen before she lost
>>>>>> contact was "stop him at all costs". IIUC the gunman took that to be
>>>>>> an order to kill. After all, he's a paid gunman - that's what he does.
>>>>>
>>>>>Speculation.
>>>>
>>>> What is? Are you suggesting that the gunman took it upon himself to
>>>> blast 8 bullets into somebody w/o senior officer authorisation?
>>>
>>>Non sequitur.
>>
>> Not really. Just pointing out that when police call in their gunmen,
>> there becomes an expectation that somebody may get shot, especially
>> when the commander says "stop him at all costs". What should the
>> gunman do? throw stones at the suspect?
>
>He isn't a 'gunman'. He is a police officer who has a firearm. He may only
>use reasonable force.

Sorry, but he is being used as a gunman since he's apparently not
accountable for his actions. We could just as easily use thugs off
the street.

>Non-sequitur means 'it does not follow'. It 'does not follow' that a police
>officer with a firearm is required to shoot someone.

That's not what I wrote TD. Read it again.

>>>You don't know what the order was (certainly that is the first time I
>>>have
>>>seen "at all costs"), you don't know what authorisations the officers had
>>>nor what they believed.
>>
>> Obviously I'm quoting from numerous TV News/news articles but I have
>> little doubt to think they're wrong.
>
>An article in last night's Evening Standard claimed she used those words.
>Another article claims _she_ claims she did not use a 'codeword' - it is
>unclear from the article whether the codeword was for the use of firearms or
>for the following of Operation Kratos policy.

OK that shows you how the police muddy the waters, but none of this
alters my fundamental position which is that the police gunman must be
held personally accountable for his actions and must not be allowed to
hide behind police procedures - possibly deliberately vague to
accomodate exactly this sort of situation.

>> Whatever, if it was not the case that he was given those instructions
>> and therefore acted on his own initiative (as indeed he should have
>> done), that makes it even more the case that he should be held to
>> account.
>>
>>>However, I think it's pretty safe to presume that they were authorised to
>>>shoot should they have an 'honest belief' that it would be 'reasonable
>>>force'.
>>
>> But the gunman is not to be given the opportunity to prove BRD that
>> his *honest belief* was derived from his own observations at the time
>> and not from comments/instructions made to him by his superiors;
>
>The _prosecution_ has the burden of proof, and that's the way it should be.

You do not understand what I'm saying.
Read my replies to Alex and Roger for a detailed explanation of them.

>> the
>> latter of course would be unacceptable as a defence.
>
>Why?
>
>> The CPS have decided not to go ahead and are therefore pre-judging
>> what a court may decide.
>>
>> There appears 'at least' to be a mindset within the CPS that because
>> we are talking here of a policeman, we should assume that he did not
>> kill the victim out of malice and therefore we should apply softer
>> rules to him than say a common murderer and turn the law on its
>> head in the process.
>
>I'm sympathetic to that point of view. I believe that the threshold for the
>decision to prosecute should be lower for those in authority as compared to
>members of the public.
>
><snip>
>>>>The law simply provides *honest belief* as
>>>> a defence but that doesn't mean the prosecution need to disprove it.
>>>
>>>The CPS has said that it wouldn't be able to show the officers could not
>>>have genuinely held the honest belief in question. It has nothing else on
>>>them hence it isn't proceeding with the prosecution.
>>
>> Indeed but I repeat that the CPS are turning the law on its head.
>>
>> If the matter went to court, I can't believe the gunman could prove
>> BRD that his honest belief was derived from his own first hand
>> observations as would be required. The CPS are asserting that it's
>> for the prosecution to disprove their claim.
>
>The CPS is correct. It is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the
>defendant, and that's just the way it should be.
>
>The CPS has also said it would not be able to prove that the officers could
>not have genuinely held the honest belief. Whether that is true or false is
>another matter.
>
><snip>
>

--
"Blair's inner circle and its ferocious grab for power":
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1747772,00.html

"In the guise of fighting terrorism and maintaining public order,
Tony Blair's Government has quietly and systematically taken power
from Parliament and the British people. The author [Henry Porter]
charts a nine-year assault on civil liberties that reveals the
danger of trading freedom for security":
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1129827.ece

Alex Heney

19-07-2006, 01:41 AM

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 23:06:42 +0100, Richard Miller
<richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <fjjqb294tekd7es2crm44p82ut41f8gvfn@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
><me8@privacy.net> writes
>>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 12:34:12 +0100, hummingbird
>><RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So in this case I find the police gunman guilty of murder because
>>>he shot and killed de Menezes .....and he doesn't even deny it.
>>>
>>>What's that I hear you say about him having an honest belief that
>>>de Menezes posed an imminent threat? Prove it!
>>>
>>
>>To which the response of the defence would be "I don't have to. You
>>prove I didn't believe that".
>>
>>
>>I have no idea why you think the burden of proof might be reversed in
>>this situation.
>
>True.
>
>But that is the point when I say, "No one said he had a bomb. The
>surveillance guy did not think he had a bomb, and was restraining him.
>There was no rucksack or anything else that could conceivably have been
>a bomb. And you refused to say anything until you had had a chance to
>confer with your lawyers and check what you would have had to believe to
>escape a murder charge.
>
>"I put it to you that you did believe that dM was a terrorist, but that
>you did not know or care whether he actually had a bomb with him."
>
>If the defendant says nothing to that, chooses in fact not to give
>evidence, do you really not think that a jury would be entitled to
>convict?

The jury are *entitled* to do what they like.

I don't think many would, if he just said "I assumed that them telling
me he had been positively identified as a terrorist meant that he was
an active terrorist".

Since that is the interpretation I think most people would probably
put on that, I would be surprised if you could get 10 jurors to agree
that he did not believe it.

If he refused to give evidence, as you suggest, then yes they probably
would convict, because they are allowed to draw inferences from that
(and would even if they are not supposedly allowed to).
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Positive: Mistaken at the top of one's voice.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Alex Heney

19-07-2006, 01:43 AM

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 23:23:20 +0100, hummingbird
<RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 22:12:49 +0100 'Alex Heney'
>posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>
>>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 12:34:12 +0100, hummingbird
>><RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 08:57:19 GMT 'Scorpius'
>>>posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 09:19:24 +0100, hummingbird
>>>><RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Afaik a defence of *honest belief* is available under the law but it's
>>>>>for the defence to prove, not the prosecution.
>>>
>>>>In Common Law the defense does not have to prove anything - it is the
>>>>job of the state to prove that the defendant is guilty.
>>>
>>>Yes I appreciate that.
>>
>>You obviously don't, from your response.
>
>No, I'm saying that the presumption of innocence is fine but when a
>police gunman kills an innocent civilian and does not deny it, there
>must be clear accountability. Prima facie evidence says he's guilty.
>If you like, he was caught red-handed with a smoking gun.
>
>I'm prepared to accept a plea of honest belief providing it was formed
>by the gunman from personal assessment of the circumstances - not from
>information passed to him 2nd or 3rd hand - and stands up to scrutiny
>in a court.
>
>IOW the legal situation which should exist is that each person who
>kills is directly responsible for his/her actions, irrespective of
>what he may be told by his boss.
>
>The present situation is that the police are being allowed to use
>their gunmen as *death squads* who are then not responsible for their
>actions, since any one of them can simply claim honest belief based
>upon information passed to him by his boss.
>
>Can you see what I'm getting at?

Yes, but it is not what you were arguing in the point above.

And the only way you are going to get what you want is for you to
become a judge who sits on appeals, or to get parliament to legislate
for a law that is almost entirely common law at present.

And I don't agree with you either :-)
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
If cows could fly, everyone would carry an umbrella.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Alex Heney

19-07-2006, 01:45 AM

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 23:41:13 +0100, hummingbird
<RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:

<snip>

>
>What we saw yesterday was the direct consequence of this not being
>the legal position. It is nothing less than an attack on democratic
>accountability and is the sort of sham which we expect to see in
>dictatorships and lawless countries.

Actually, it is the exact opposite, since this law has not been
promulgated by parliament, but is the considered reasoning of a number
of senior judges over the years.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Illiterate?... Write for free help.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Alex Heney

19-07-2006, 01:46 AM

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 23:43:16 +0100, hummingbird
<RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 22:09:12 +0100 'Alex Heney'
>posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>
<snip>

>>
>>The burden of proof is on the prosecution. (and you might note that I
>>am by no means the only one telling you this - some of the others are
>>lawyers).
>
>Sequence of posts problems...
>But I thought this issue was debated months ago and that it was
>clearly the defence duty to prove their honest belief - apparently
>not.
>
>Forgive me for thinking that we live in an accountable democracy.

What a silly thought.

But irrelevant to this question.

It would hardly make it a more accountable democracy if parliament
changed the law to override what the courts have decided over many
years, would it?
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Some things have got to be believed to be seen.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Alex Heney

19-07-2006, 01:49 AM

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 23:08:45 +0100, Richard Miller
<richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <sqjqb2hak9dh95s8i48r5k3t8pkmm9mimh@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
><me8@privacy.net> writes
>>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 08:25:36 +0100, Richard Miller
>><richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In message <sa6ob2l5p1192b9t92qpbn62d8o4d97ae6@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
>>><me8@privacy.net> writes
>>>>If the CPS thought there was at least a 50:50 chance of success, then
>>>>yes.
>>>>
>>>>If the evidence pointed to it being likely you *did* believe him to be
>>>>an imminent threat, then you would probably not be prosecuted.
>>>
>>>But just changing the facts slightly to something more akin to the de
>>>Menezes case, if he shot his shotgun through the front door at what he
>>>believed was someone breaking into his house, and it turned out to be
>>>the milkman, he absolutely 100% certainly would be.
>>
>>Yes, but that is a lot further away from the De Menezes case than your
>>previous suggestion. I can't think why you suggest it is "more akin".
>
>Because in the burglar case, the mere fact of him being in the house
>justifies a belief that he is at least something of a threat. The fact
>the dM was sitting quietly on a train did not give any reason to believe
>he was a threat. So it is more akin because it gives the killer the same
>lack of reason to believe the deceased was a threat.

It is not more akin, unless you ignore everything else about JdM,
(including the fact that when the firearms officers saw him, he
*wasn't* just sitting quietly).

The fact that he had been told by his senior officers that the suspect
was a positively identified terrorist gives even more justification to
the belief he was a threat than in the case of the burglar.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Best file compression around: "DEL *.*" - 100% compression.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Alex Heney

19-07-2006, 01:51 AM

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 23:09:39 +0100, Richard Miller
<richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <4tjqb256la6agfej0bc4co4i9fmfc8jf64@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
><me8@privacy.net> writes
>>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 08:23:51 +0100, Richard Miller
>><richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In message <v83ob29gu3m0sr7db1j5oj05icefnsmns9@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
>>><me8@privacy.net> writes
>>>
>>>>There would not be evidence supporting the fact you really did hold
>>>>that belief.
>>>>
>>>>"In fact, the evidence supports their claim that they genuinely
>>>>believed that Mr de Menezes was a suicide| bomber"
>>>
>>>But, fatal to that line of reasoning, the evidence does not support that
>>>they believed he actually had a bomb with him on this occasion.
>>
>>So you think the CPS were lying.
>>
>>They were satisfied that the evidence indicated that the shooters
>>*did* believe that he was a terrorist. (and in that context, believing
>>he was a terrorist only makes sense if that means "a terrorist on a
>>mission" to use your phrase.)
>
>It absolutely does not imply that. Osman was and is always Osman even
>when he is not carrying a bomb.

So you think the firearms officers were just told he was "Osman"?

I thought they had been told he was a terrorist.

And in the context they were involved in, i cannot imagine them
thinking that meant anything but an active terrorist.

I also find it hard to believe that the CPS think anything else.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Iraq won the toss... and elected to receive.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Alex Heney

19-07-2006, 01:52 AM

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 23:12:12 +0100, "Rob"
<rsvptorob-usenetREMOVE@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>Alex Heney wrote:
>|||
>||| The CPS have given an excessively simplistic explanation which is
>||| patronising to the public and I hope it is challenged in court.
>|||
>||
>|| There is an ongoing prosecution, which could be prejudiced by giving
>|| out these details at this stage.
>||
>|| They will surely come out during the court case.
>
>Not if the Met plead guilty.

Good point.

But at that point, the full IPCC report should be published, and
hopefully, also a fuller CPS report.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Misfortune: The kind of fortune that never misses.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Alex Heney

19-07-2006, 01:55 AM

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 22:29:30 +0100, Mike <mike@kempston.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 13:12:02 +0100, "Uno-Hoo!"
><Uno-Hoo@NOSPAMbigfootdotcom> wrote:
>
>>Sorry but he has to do nothing of the sort. He merely has to show that he
>>has an honest belief. He does not even have to show that that honest belief
>>was reasonable. He most certainly does not have to show that he arrived at
>>the honest belief via first hand information because the law does not
>>require that.
>
>Excuse me being blunt, but readers may wish to place rather more
>reliance on the opinion of the respected lawyers who are posting to
>this thread than on the opinion of a retired traffic inspector from
>the sticks who thinks he knows the law better than the lawyers.

But the "respected lawyers" (I think Richard is the only actual lawyer
posting on the thread, BICBW) are saying exactly the same thing.

Richard's argument is not against that point, which he accepts, but
about whether they needed to be specifically told that the suspect had
a bomb in order to reach that belief.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
He has Van Gogh's ear for music.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Mr X

19-07-2006, 07:11 AM

In article <4fkqb21kkh75thrrndtiaedgpieq0hs1ee@news.kempston.n et>, Mike
<mike@kempston.net> writes

>Excuse me being blunt, but readers may wish to place rather more
>reliance on the opinion of the respected lawyers who are posting to
>this thread than on the opinion of a retired traffic inspector from
>the sticks who thinks he knows the law better than the lawyers.
>
>Mike.

You forgot the words, "Dishonest", "Blinkered", "Prejudiced".
--
Mr X

chippy

19-07-2006, 07:39 AM

Alex Heney wrote:

> > > > What's that I hear you say about him having an honest belief
> > > > that de Menezes posed an imminent threat? Prove it!
> > >
> > > His supervisor told him so.
> >
> > Allegedly that maybe so but I find it 100% unacceptable.
>
> You may do.
>
> I may do.
>
> But that is the law.
>
> And it is up to the prosecution to prove that he did not genuinely
> hold that belief, regardless of the reason he may claim for coming
> to that belief.

Yet, realistically, they would have to *use* that reason to disprove
his belief.
Incidentally, as others have said, you cannot disprove a belief, you
can merely say why it is reasonable to think otherwise.

--
wigwambam

PeteM

19-07-2006, 09:19 AM

Alex Heney <me8@privacy.net> posted
>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 23:08:45 +0100, Richard Miller
><richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>The fact
>>the dM was sitting quietly on a train did not give any reason to believe
>>he was a threat. So it is more akin because it gives the killer the same
>>lack of reason to believe the deceased was a threat.
>
>It is not more akin, unless you ignore everything else about JdM,
>(including the fact that when the firearms officers saw him, he
>*wasn't* just sitting quietly).

According to whom? Let's not forget that these are not established
facts, just the story given out by the suspects and therefore very much
open to question.

--
PeteM

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Kim Bolton

19-07-2006, 10:57 AM

TD wrote:

>I also note that in the Panorama transcript that Kev frequently refers to, a
>Chief Constable Wilding (Head of the Suicide Bomber Working Party) appears
>to claim that, in developing Operation Kratos, they had not planned for a
>suspect doing something that many if not most Londoners do every weekday
>morning - take some form of public transport.

Once upon a time I sat on the Staff Committee of the establishment I
worked at.

During this time, major roadworks had creeated a large new roundabout
outside the area used by the Admin bulidings. Lorries and van used to
park on the roundabout, while their drivers breakfasted at a local
cafe.

Having been trained in various forms of demolition and other uses for
explosives, I put it to the Commmittee that a lorry loaded with
explosives, if parked with the others and detonated, would flatten the
Admin buildings and cause injuries and loss of life.

The Committee's recommendations wound their way up to Management, who
dismissed the idea of the lorry-bomb out of hand - whoever heard of a
lorry-bomb, they said.

Three months later, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by a
lorry-bomb with the loss of over 200 lives.

The next day, the local Council were painting double yellow lines on
the roundabout, the police had copious 'no parking' notices present,
and for some time after patrolled the roundabout during the morning
rush-hour.

Never underestimate the ability of Management to ignore the
uncomfortable, as frenzied activity after the event looks much more
preferable to implementing the sensible beforehand, based on the
advice of the experienced.

The Todal

19-07-2006, 11:21 AM

"Kim Bolton" <nospam@all.invalid> wrote in message
news:5ovrb2l6ag47ddf8n03g1cd7847ta4n8it@4ax.com...
>
> TD wrote:
>
>>I also note that in the Panorama transcript that Kev frequently refers to,
>>a
>>Chief Constable Wilding (Head of the Suicide Bomber Working Party) appears
>>to claim that, in developing Operation Kratos, they had not planned for a
>>suspect doing something that many if not most Londoners do every weekday
>>morning - take some form of public transport.
>
> Once upon a time I sat on the Staff Committee of the establishment I
> worked at.
>
> During this time, major roadworks had creeated a large new roundabout
> outside the area used by the Admin bulidings. Lorries and van used to
> park on the roundabout, while their drivers breakfasted at a local
> cafe.
>
> Having been trained in various forms of demolition and other uses for
> explosives, I put it to the Commmittee that a lorry loaded with
> explosives, if parked with the others and detonated, would flatten the
> Admin buildings and cause injuries and loss of life.
>
> The Committee's recommendations wound their way up to Management, who
> dismissed the idea of the lorry-bomb out of hand - whoever heard of a
> lorry-bomb, they said.
>
> Three months later, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by a
> lorry-bomb with the loss of over 200 lives.
>
> The next day, the local Council were painting double yellow lines on
> the roundabout, the police had copious 'no parking' notices present,
> and for some time after patrolled the roundabout during the morning
> rush-hour.
>
> Never underestimate the ability of Management to ignore the
> uncomfortable, as frenzied activity after the event looks much more
> preferable to implementing the sensible beforehand, based on the
> advice of the experienced.

LOL!
And of course, much the same happened with 9/11. A report had already been
circulated at Presidential level, warning that planes might be hijacked and
crashed into buildings, but because it had never happened yet and seemed so
unlikely, nobody thought it necessary to take any action.

=?UTF-8?B?UGFsaW5kcuKYu21l?=

19-07-2006, 11:57 AM

The Todal wrote:
> "Kim Bolton" <nospam@all.invalid> wrote in message
> news:5ovrb2l6ag47ddf8n03g1cd7847ta4n8it@4ax.com...
>
>>TD wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I also note that in the Panorama transcript that Kev frequently refers to,
>>>a
>>>Chief Constable Wilding (Head of the Suicide Bomber Working Party) appears
>>>to claim that, in developing Operation Kratos, they had not planned for a
>>>suspect doing something that many if not most Londoners do every weekday
>>>morning - take some form of public transport.
>>
>>Once upon a time I sat on the Staff Committee of the establishment I
>>worked at.
>>
>>During this time, major roadworks had creeated a large new roundabout
>>outside the area used by the Admin bulidings. Lorries and van used to
>>park on the roundabout, while their drivers breakfasted at a local
>>cafe.
>>
>>Having been trained in various forms of demolition and other uses for
>>explosives, I put it to the Commmittee that a lorry loaded with
>>explosives, if parked with the others and detonated, would flatten the
>>Admin buildings and cause injuries and loss of life.
>>
>>The Committee's recommendations wound their way up to Management, who
>>dismissed the idea of the lorry-bomb out of hand - whoever heard of a
>>lorry-bomb, they said.
>>
>>Three months later, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by a
>>lorry-bomb with the loss of over 200 lives.
>>
>>The next day, the local Council were painting double yellow lines on
>>the roundabout, the police had copious 'no parking' notices present,
>>and for some time after patrolled the roundabout during the morning
>>rush-hour.
>>
>>Never underestimate the ability of Management to ignore the
>>uncomfortable, as frenzied activity after the event looks much more
>>preferable to implementing the sensible beforehand, based on the
>>advice of the experienced.
>
>
> LOL!
> And of course, much the same happened with 9/11. A report had already been
> circulated at Presidential level, warning that planes might be hijacked and
> crashed into buildings, but because it had never happened yet and seemed so
> unlikely, nobody thought it necessary to take any action.
>
>

ISTR that there were also warnings of ships being turned into WMD, dirty
suitcase bombs being made from ex-Soviet nuclear waste, attacks on the
UK power grid, mass kidnapping of MPs family members, et al.. ISTM that
we have massively /over-reacted/ to the threats, not under-reacted. If
someone wants to make some fizz-bang in their bathtub and cart it into
Central London, there is never going to be a way to stop them, so why
waste millions trying?

I do wonder, for the guy who shot the electrician - whether this was the
first "hot pursuit" of an "armed" person in which he was so directly
involved. A bit different for the squaddies in Iraq, where every single
person approaching them could easily be a suicide bomber. IIUC, large
numbers of the police in the US never have to draw their gun and use it.
No wonder our police are so inexperienced in the real thing. It might be
an idea to ship all the UK armed police out to Basra (in batches) and
let them man a few checkpoints and do the few patrols for a couple of
months..

--
Sue

Rob

19-07-2006, 11:59 AM

Alex Heney wrote:
||| Forgive me for thinking that we live in an accountable democracy.
||
|| What a silly thought.
||
|| But irrelevant to this question.
||
|| It would hardly make it a more accountable democracy if parliament
|| changed the law to override what the courts have decided over many
|| years, would it?

Perhaps not, but having those that kill give an account, in public, of why
they did it might go some way towards it.

--
Rob

Uno-Hoo!

19-07-2006, 12:36 PM

"Richard Miller" <richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:qjU6SEatvVvEFwlu@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...
> In message <sqjqb2hak9dh95s8i48r5k3t8pkmm9mimh@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
> <me8@privacy.net> writes
>>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 08:25:36 +0100, Richard Miller
>><richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In message <sa6ob2l5p1192b9t92qpbn62d8o4d97ae6@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
>>><me8@privacy.net> writes
>>>>If the CPS thought there was at least a 50:50 chance of success, then
>>>>yes.
>>>>
>>>>If the evidence pointed to it being likely you *did* believe him to be
>>>>an imminent threat, then you would probably not be prosecuted.
>>>
>>>But just changing the facts slightly to something more akin to the de
>>>Menezes case, if he shot his shotgun through the front door at what he
>>>believed was someone breaking into his house, and it turned out to be
>>>the milkman, he absolutely 100% certainly would be.
>>
>>Yes, but that is a lot further away from the De Menezes case than your
>>previous suggestion. I can't think why you suggest it is "more akin".
>
> Because in the burglar case, the mere fact of him being in the house
> justifies a belief that he is at least something of a threat. The fact the
> dM was sitting quietly on a train did not give any reason to believe he
> was a threat.

On its own that is true. But the honest belief was not simply formed by
looking at an innocent man sat on a train reading a newspaper was it?

So it is more akin because it gives the killer the same
> lack of reason to believe the deceased was a threat.

Nonsense. See above.

Uno-Hoo!

Uno-Hoo!

19-07-2006, 12:37 PM

"PeteM" <Otcbn@callnetuk.com> wrote in message
news:gYp8XUAlsevEFw25@callnetuk.com...
> Alex Heney <me8@privacy.net> posted
>>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 23:08:45 +0100, Richard Miller
>><richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>The fact
>>>the dM was sitting quietly on a train did not give any reason to believe
>>>he was a threat. So it is more akin because it gives the killer the same
>>>lack of reason to believe the deceased was a threat.
>>
>>It is not more akin, unless you ignore everything else about JdM,
>>(including the fact that when the firearms officers saw him, he
>>*wasn't* just sitting quietly).
>
> According to whom? Let's not forget that these are not established
> facts, just the story given out by the suspects and therefore very much
> open to question.

What took place within the train carriage was corroborated by several
completely independent civilian witnesses.

Uno-Hoo!

Uno-Hoo!

19-07-2006, 12:50 PM

"Rob" <rsvptorob-usenetREMOVE@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:k5KdnX_yb6jOliDZRVnytw@bt.com...
> Uno-Hoo! wrote:
> ||| And I am quite certain that if the killer putting forward this
> ||| defence was anyone other than a police officer, the CPS would have
> ||| proceeded with the case.
> ||
> || Possibly - but not simply because 'he was a police officer' - but
> || rather because of the unique role he was being expected to undertake
> || at the time of the incident. A role that few people other than
> || police officers would ever have to undertake.
>
> You said this earlier:
>
> "The CPS are notorious amongst police officers for
> refusing to take cases to court - cases which in many cases the officers
> feel themselves have an excellent chance of reaching conviction. *The
> criteria they use is the same no matter who the accused*"
>
> Now you say they 'possibly' applied a different criteria to reach their
> decision (with the rather bizarre comment that it's not because they are
> police officers, but because they do a police officers job!).
>
> So which of these contradictory claims is true?

What I am suggesting is that whether or not an 'honest belief' is capable of
being disproved will very much depend upon the circumstances of each case.

In the case of armed police officers, operating under an official policy,
and relying for information on a very senior police officer who is actually
running the operation, then it is likely that the CPS would regard the
likelihood of an 'honest belief' being genuine is higher than in some other
cases where a civilian is relying on an honest belief formed by something
said to him by a person, for example, not in a real position to know.

The role of police firearms officer, the policy they were operating under,
and the authority of the source of information would undoubtedly play a part
in the CPS decision as to whether the honest belief was genuine and capable
of being disproved.

Because there are very few civilian situations that can compare to that
scenario, it is possible that the decision reached by the CPS might be
different.

Uno-Hoo

Uno-Hoo!

19-07-2006, 12:50 PM

"Alex Heney" <me8@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:47lqb2p4qhlh4mfshteqogv65h8dh4tcvc@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 13:31:34 +0100, "Uno-Hoo!"
> <Uno-Hoo@NOSPAMbigfootdotcom> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Richard Miller" <richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:+0aP3PyV5IvEFw2e@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...
>>> In message <ra3ob2d8lfvugs6bq3u19i2qtfjfkv3qd3@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
>>> <me8@privacy.net> writes
>>>
>>>>It doesn't have to be from first hand information.
>>>>
>>>>The law only requires that he did hold that genuine belief. There is no
>>>>requirement as to how he came to that belief.
>>>
>>> The proviso to this comment is that this is something that has developed
>>> over time through case law. I don't think the point has ever been tested
>>> whether the honest belief has to have been formed from the killer's own
>>> observations, or whether he can rely exclusively on something he has
>>> been
>>> told by someone else. I am far from convinced that a belief formed
>>> without
>>> any personal assessment of the situation would give rise to a defence,
>>> because of the extreme personal onus on anyone who takes another's life
>>> to
>>> justify doing so.
>>>
>>> And I am quite certain that if the killer putting forward this defence
>>> was
>>> anyone other than a police officer, the CPS would have proceeded with
>>> the
>>> case.
>>
>>Possibly - but not simply because 'he was a police officer' - but rather
>>because of the unique role he was being expected to undertake at the time
>>of
>>the incident. A role that few people other than police officers would ever
>>have to undertake.
>>
>
> That should not lead to any special consideration when deciding
> whether to prosecute.

See my response to the OP.

Uno-Hoo!

Uno-Hoo!

19-07-2006, 12:53 PM

Uno-Hoo!

19-07-2006, 12:58 PM

"chippy" <chippy@wood.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4i4rofF2664hU1@individual.net...
> Uno-Hoo! wrote:
>>
>> Sorry but he has to do nothing of the sort. He merely has to show
>> that he has an honest belief. He does not even have to show that that
>> honest belief was reasonable. He most certainly does not have to show
>> that he arrived at the honest belief via first hand information
>> because the law does not require that.
>
> Right, so all the police officer has to say, is "I have honest belief"
> then clam up, and not say why?

I didn't say that did I? Of course a police officer, or anyone else, relying
on a defence of honest belief would have to give an explanation of just why
he came to that belief. Under the existing case law, however, he could then
say, "I accept in hindsight that my honest belief may have been
unreasonable - but it did not seem so at the time."

> Obviously a member of the public would have to say why he held that
> belief, but a police officer would not.

I don't see how you can come to that conclusion from anthing I have said!

Uno-Hoo!

Uno-Hoo!

19-07-2006, 01:01 PM

"Mike" <mike@kempston.net> wrote in message
news:4fkqb21kkh75thrrndtiaedgpieq0hs1ee@news.kemps ton.net...
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 13:12:02 +0100, "Uno-Hoo!"
> <Uno-Hoo@NOSPAMbigfootdotcom> wrote:
>
>>Sorry but he has to do nothing of the sort. He merely has to show that he
>>has an honest belief. He does not even have to show that that honest
>>belief
>>was reasonable. He most certainly does not have to show that he arrived at
>>the honest belief via first hand information because the law does not
>>require that.
>
> Excuse me being blunt, but readers may wish to place rather more
> reliance on the opinion of the respected lawyers who are posting to
> this thread than on the opinion of a retired traffic inspector from
> the sticks who thinks he knows the law better than the lawyers.

If you go back through the posts Mike you will find that I have provided
both links to legal argument and case law, and actually cut 'n pasted
extracts from those which state clearly what I am arguing above. I do not
actually believe that any of these 'respected lawyers' are disagreeing with
that argument above - but if they are then they are wrong.

Uno-Hoo!

Mike

19-07-2006, 01:28 PM

Uno-Hoo! wrote:
> "hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
> news:kjfpb293e4v4bc60jp9spoeqb6k67f9o5i@4ax.com...
>>
>>I believe when a person shoots another in cold blood, the presumption
>>should be that he is guilty: "I saw him shoot the guy My Lord".
>
> Guilty of what? Are you suggesting that every single time a person kills
> another person they are guilty of murder? You do talk some rot!
>

He suggested nothing of the sort. He specified killing by shooting
which, usually, indicates an intention to, at least, cause serious
harm. That's enough for a prima facie case of murder and, once those
facts are established BRD, it should the be for the killer to show
lawful excuse.

You have a very strange way of interpreting what other say - is that
part of police training?

--
Mike

PeteM

19-07-2006, 01:37 PM

Uno-Hoo! <Uno-Hoo@NOSPAMbigfootdotcom.?> posted
>
>"PeteM" <Otcbn@callnetuk.com> wrote in message
>news:gYp8XUAlsevEFw25@callnetuk.com...
>>
>> According to whom? Let's not forget that these are not established
>> facts, just the story given out by the suspects and therefore very much
>> open to question.
>
>What took place within the train carriage was corroborated by several
>completely independent civilian witnesses.

And who were these witnesses, who interviewed them, how did their
alleged statements reach the public domain? Did they also mention
Menezes' bulky jacket, barrier-leaping habits, and expired work permit?
What witness statements have *not* reached the public domain?

You get the point? None of these statements have been verified. We do
not even know who made them, let alone had the chance to examine their
veracity. In *no* other circumstances would you take them on trust if it
were not that the suspects are police officers.

--
PeteM

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Richard

19-07-2006, 02:00 PM

Alex Heney wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 23:09:39 +0100, Richard Miller
> <richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >It absolutely does not imply that. Osman was and is always Osman even
> >when he is not carrying a bomb.
>
> So you think the firearms officers were just told he was "Osman"?
>
> I thought they had been told he was a terrorist.
>
> And in the context they were involved in, i cannot imagine them
> thinking that meant anything but an active terrorist.
>
> I also find it hard to believe that the CPS think anything else.

Given that this was a surveillance operation, and that the man had been
followed for a long time before the firearms officers arrived, and
given the need for absolute precision when talking about killing
someone deliberately, I do not see how the shooters could possibly have
made any such assumption. Far from being logical, it strikes me as
untenable that anyone involved in such a surveillance operation could
make such a leap.

Richard Miller

19-07-2006, 02:37 PM

"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
news:kjfpb293e4v4bc60jp9spoeqb6k67f9o5i@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:08:45 +0100 'TD'
> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>
>>
>>"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>>news:i09pb25eodjv8em7l00v61j25b2uu90fhk@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 08:27:25 +0100 'Richard Miller'
>>> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>>
>>>>In message <1bunb2tqe6f0ic026o6oc0l7i9qjfab3ec@4ax.com>, hummingbird
>>>><RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> writes
>>>>
>>>>>When you kill someone it is you (not the prosecution) who have to prove
>>>>>BRD that you held the *honest belief* that the other person was an
>>>>>imminent threat. The law simply provides *honest belief* as a defence
>>>>>but that doesn't mean the prosecution need to disprove it.
>>>>
>>>>No, that is not correct. If the defence raises self-defence and honest
>>>>belief as an issue, the prosecution is required to prove it beyond
>>>>reasonable doubt.
>>>
>>> So it appears the law does not require each person to be accountable
>>> for their actions based upon their own assessment of the circumstances
>>> and is not required to prove BRD that his reasons were justified. Do I
>>> get the feeling that the law is an ass?
>>
>>You should be getting the feeling that this supports the presumption of
>>innocence: i.e. it is for the prosecution to prove BRD that the shooter
>>could not have genuinely held the honest belief.
>
> I believe when a person shoots another in cold blood,

What do you mean by 'in cold blood'?

> the presumption
> should be that he is guilty: "I saw him shoot the guy My Lord".

The presumption of innocence applies to everyone, and every man is entitled
to a fair trial.

> I have no problem whatsoever with the accused putting up a defence
> of *honest belief* providing that he can prove it BRD to a court.
> I do not believe it should be the duty of the court to disprove it.

It's the job of the prosecution to prove the man is guilty. It's the duty
of the court to try the man fairly.

> The current legal situation is a farce, coincidentally framed (by
> chance or intent) to provide police gunmen and other agents of the
> state with a get-out-of-jail-free card, but not most other killers.

Emotive rubbish.

In fact the _law_ applies the same rule about reasonable force to everyone.
There is no clause exempting firearms officers. The only reasonable dispute
here is over CPS _policy_ when it comes to prosecuting agents of the state.

Dave Baker

19-07-2006, 02:47 PM

"Alex Heney" <me8@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:e80rb2tnaq1cggi6rqntfamg6qjcqv5vjf@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 23:08:45 +0100, Richard Miller
> <richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Because in the burglar case, the mere fact of him being in the house
>>justifies a belief that he is at least something of a threat. The fact
>>the dM was sitting quietly on a train did not give any reason to believe
>>he was a threat. So it is more akin because it gives the killer the same
>>lack of reason to believe the deceased was a threat.
>
> It is not more akin, unless you ignore everything else about JdM,
> (including the fact that when the firearms officers saw him, he
> *wasn't* just sitting quietly).

You have no reason to conclude that's what the firearms officer first saw.
In fact the reports to date indicate that dM was indeed just sitting quietly
up to the point at which the surveillance operative said to the officer/s
"that's him there". At this point dM got up to see why someone was pointing
at him and then the SO grabbed him and forced him back into his seat. The
firearms officer must have had line of sight to dM at the moment the SO
spoke to him and pointed or he wouldn't have known who the SO was pointing
to which means his first sight of dM was sitting down reading a paper.

No other order of events would make much sense anyway so the above seems
logically inevitable and therefore most likely true.

In other words the firearms officers ignored the plainly apparent lack of
anywhere that dM could be hiding a bomb and the fact that the SO grabbed him
would be absolutely forbidden if he had any suspicion that dM indeed did
have one. Every indication should have been screaming at the firearms
officers that this man was not an imminent terrorist.

The most charitable spin you could possibly put on it is gross incompetence
and negligence at all levels of the chain of command and operation. Only by
prosecuting them will police ever be forced to recognise their failings and
responsibilities. As things stand they know they have a cast iron, gold
plated get out of jail free card courtesy of the CPS and Whitehall so why
should they give a stuff about the niceties of thinking a bit before pulling
a trigger.
--
Dave Baker
www.pumaracing.co.uk
Usenet - a collection of people who only open their mouth to change feet.

Dave Baker

19-07-2006, 02:49 PM

"Richard" <richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1153314001.514424.285980@b28g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> Alex Heney wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 23:09:39 +0100, Richard Miller
>> <richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >It absolutely does not imply that. Osman was and is always Osman even
>> >when he is not carrying a bomb.
>>
>> So you think the firearms officers were just told he was "Osman"?
>>
>> I thought they had been told he was a terrorist.
>>
>> And in the context they were involved in, i cannot imagine them
>> thinking that meant anything but an active terrorist.
>>
>> I also find it hard to believe that the CPS think anything else.
>
> Given that this was a surveillance operation, and that the man had been
> followed for a long time before the firearms officers arrived, and
> given the need for absolute precision when talking about killing
> someone deliberately, I do not see how the shooters could possibly have
> made any such assumption. Far from being logical, it strikes me as
> untenable that anyone involved in such a surveillance operation could
> make such a leap.

Untenable of course but only to people to recognise that they will face a
trial if they get things wrong. With carte blanche to kill from the CPS they
have no need to do too much thinking first.
--
Dave Baker
www.pumaracing.co.uk
Usenet - a collection of people who only open their mouth to change feet.

AlanG

19-07-2006, 04:12 PM

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 10:57:15 +0100, Kim Bolton <nospam@all.invalid>
wrote:

>
>TD wrote:
>
>>I also note that in the Panorama transcript that Kev frequently refers to, a
>>Chief Constable Wilding (Head of the Suicide Bomber Working Party) appears
>>to claim that, in developing Operation Kratos, they had not planned for a
>>suspect doing something that many if not most Londoners do every weekday
>>morning - take some form of public transport.
>
>Once upon a time I sat on the Staff Committee of the establishment I
>worked at.
>
>During this time, major roadworks had creeated a large new roundabout
>outside the area used by the Admin bulidings. Lorries and van used to
>park on the roundabout, while their drivers breakfasted at a local
>cafe.
>
>Having been trained in various forms of demolition and other uses for
>explosives, I put it to the Commmittee that a lorry loaded with
>explosives, if parked with the others and detonated, would flatten the
>Admin buildings and cause injuries and loss of life.
>
>The Committee's recommendations wound their way up to Management, who
>dismissed the idea of the lorry-bomb out of hand - whoever heard of a
>lorry-bomb, they said.
>
>Three months later, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by a
>lorry-bomb with the loss of over 200 lives.
>
>The next day, the local Council were painting double yellow lines on
>the roundabout, the police had copious 'no parking' notices present,
>and for some time after patrolled the roundabout during the morning
>rush-hour.

Double yellow lines and no parking signs will stop car bombers??
"Hey Patrick. We can't park our car full of explosives there. Double
yellow lines mean its illegal. Better leave it somewhere else"

"You're quite right Mickric. We don't want a parking fine do we?"

>

AlanG

19-07-2006, 04:16 PM

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:21:59 +0100, "The Todal" <deadmailbox@beeb.net>
wrote:

>
e of the experienced.
>
>LOL!
>And of course, much the same happened with 9/11. A report had already been
>circulated at Presidential level, warning that planes might be hijacked and
>crashed into buildings, but because it had never happened yet and seemed so
>unlikely, nobody thought it necessary to take any action.
>
Then they stopped people taking corkscrews and nailfiles on board
instead of securing the flightdeck.

And of course if 'security experts' had not drummed into people to
cooperate with hijackers the passengers would likely have taken them
out.

I don't fly if I can avoid it. The people in charge of airline
security are morons.

Kim Bolton

19-07-2006, 04:26 PM

AlanG wrote:

>Double yellow lines and no parking signs will stop car bombers??

In the last 23 years no lorry bombs have gone off there, neither have
any lorries even parked there ;-)

Alex Heney

19-07-2006, 04:30 PM

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 09:19:49 +0100, PeteM <Otcbn@callnetuk.com> wrote:

>Alex Heney <me8@privacy.net> posted
>>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 23:08:45 +0100, Richard Miller
>><richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>The fact
>>>the dM was sitting quietly on a train did not give any reason to believe
>>>he was a threat. So it is more akin because it gives the killer the same
>>>lack of reason to believe the deceased was a threat.
>>
>>It is not more akin, unless you ignore everything else about JdM,
>>(including the fact that when the firearms officers saw him, he
>>*wasn't* just sitting quietly).
>
>According to whom? Let's not forget that these are not established
>facts, just the story given out by the suspects and therefore very much
>open to question.

I don't think there is any question regarding the fact that he was
being grappled by the surveillance officer.

I have seen NO reports, from anywhere, that suggest otherwise.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Meets quality standards: compiles without errors.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Alex Heney

19-07-2006, 04:33 PM

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 12:50:52 +0100, "Uno-Hoo!"
<Uno-Hoo@NOSPAMbigfootdotcom> wrote:

>
>"Alex Heney" <me8@privacy.net> wrote in message
>news:47lqb2p4qhlh4mfshteqogv65h8dh4tcvc@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 13:31:34 +0100, "Uno-Hoo!"
>> <Uno-Hoo@NOSPAMbigfootdotcom> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Richard Miller" <richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>news:+0aP3PyV5IvEFw2e@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...
>>>> In message <ra3ob2d8lfvugs6bq3u19i2qtfjfkv3qd3@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
>>>> <me8@privacy.net> writes
>>>>
>>>>>It doesn't have to be from first hand information.
>>>>>
>>>>>The law only requires that he did hold that genuine belief. There is no
>>>>>requirement as to how he came to that belief.
>>>>
>>>> The proviso to this comment is that this is something that has developed
>>>> over time through case law. I don't think the point has ever been tested
>>>> whether the honest belief has to have been formed from the killer's own
>>>> observations, or whether he can rely exclusively on something he has
>>>> been
>>>> told by someone else. I am far from convinced that a belief formed
>>>> without
>>>> any personal assessment of the situation would give rise to a defence,
>>>> because of the extreme personal onus on anyone who takes another's life
>>>> to
>>>> justify doing so.
>>>>
>>>> And I am quite certain that if the killer putting forward this defence
>>>> was
>>>> anyone other than a police officer, the CPS would have proceeded with
>>>> the
>>>> case.
>>>
>>>Possibly - but not simply because 'he was a police officer' - but rather
>>>because of the unique role he was being expected to undertake at the time
>>>of
>>>the incident. A role that few people other than police officers would ever
>>>have to undertake.
>>>
>>
>> That should not lead to any special consideration when deciding
>> whether to prosecute.
>
>See my response to the OP.
>

I don't see one.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I don't suffer from insanity. I enjoy every minute of it.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

AlanG

19-07-2006, 05:04 PM

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 16:26:37 +0100, Kim Bolton <nospam@all.invalid>
wrote:

>
>AlanG wrote:
>
>>Double yellow lines and no parking signs will stop car bombers??
>
>In the last 23 years no lorry bombs have gone off there, neither have
>any lorries even parked there ;-)

Law abiding car bombers round there.

Cynic

19-07-2006, 05:46 PM

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 16:04:36 GMT, AlanG <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:

>>>Double yellow lines and no parking signs will stop car bombers??

>>In the last 23 years no lorry bombs have gone off there, neither have
>>any lorries even parked there ;-)

>Law abiding car bombers round there.

The point of the parking law is that it would make a parked lorry look
suspicious, and so it is likely to be investigated PDQ. Not that that
would make any difference to a suicide bomber, but it would to a
non-suicidal bomber who leaves a timebomb in the lorry and legs it.

--
Cynic

AlanG

19-07-2006, 07:14 PM

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:46:32 +0100, Cynic <cynic_999@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 16:04:36 GMT, AlanG <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>>>Double yellow lines and no parking signs will stop car bombers??
>
>>>In the last 23 years no lorry bombs have gone off there, neither have
>>>any lorries even parked there ;-)
>
>>Law abiding car bombers round there.
>
>The point of the parking law is that it would make a parked lorry look
>suspicious, and so it is likely to be investigated PDQ.

Why?
All that would happen is a cop or a traffic warden would stick a
ticket on it and bugger off.

> Not that that
>would make any difference to a suicide bomber, but it would to a
>non-suicidal bomber who leaves a timebomb in the lorry and legs it.

Car bombers are not likely to take note of waiting restrictions and
no bombing notices

chippy

19-07-2006, 07:17 PM

Alex Heney wrote:

> On 18 Jul 2006 19:40:00 GMT, "chippy" <chippy@wood.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Uno-Hoo! wrote:
> >>
> >> Sorry but he has to do nothing of the sort. He merely has to show
> >> that he has an honest belief. He does not even have to show that
> that >> honest belief was reasonable. He most certainly does not have
> to show >> that he arrived at the honest belief via first hand
> information >> because the law does not require that.
> >
> > Right, so all the police officer has to say, is "I have honest
> > belief" then clam up, and not say why?
> > Obviously a member of the public would have to say why he held that
> > belief, but a police officer would not.
>
> He will have to adduce sufficient evidence to show that he could
> have held that belief.
>
> It is then up to the prosecution to show he didn't.

Why? it has been said here it is enough to state he had an honest
bbelief, now, why does he all of a sudden have to explain (aka prove)
why he came about that belief?

--
wigwambam

chippy

19-07-2006, 07:21 PM

hummingbird wrote:
> That doesn't satisfy my fundamental belief that each person who kills
> another - policeman or not - must be directly accountable for his
> actions and must not be allowed to hide behind a defence of honest
> belief based upon information passed to him by his boss.
> He must form his own honest belief and be prepared to stand it up in
> court for scrutiny.

It is an awkward situation, because at times, say in a seige, the
marksman will take position and aim at one specific window, on command
of his spotter, he will take out the hostage taker.

> What we saw yesterday was the direct consequence of this not being
> the legal position. It is nothing less than an attack on democratic
> accountability and is the sort of sham which we expect to see in
> dictatorships and lawless countries.

Quite.

--
wigwambam

chippy

19-07-2006, 07:31 PM

Cynic wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 16:04:36 GMT, AlanG <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Double yellow lines and no parking signs will stop car bombers??
>
> > > In the last 23 years no lorry bombs have gone off there, neither
> > > have any lorries even parked there ;-)
>
> > Law abiding car bombers round there.
>
> The point of the parking law is that it would make a parked lorry look
> suspicious, and so it is likely to be investigated PDQ. Not that that
> would make any difference to a suicide bomber, but it would to a
> non-suicidal bomber who leaves a timebomb in the lorry and legs it.

even London traffic wardens do not act that quick, and what would their
first actions be? hang around the lorrie for a few minutes, issue a
ticket, then return next day to tow it away?

--
wigwambam

Rob

19-07-2006, 08:18 PM

chippy wrote:
|||
||| It is then up to the prosecution to show he didn't.
||
|| Why? it has been said here it is enough to state he had an honest
|| bbelief, now, why does he all of a sudden have to explain (aka prove)
|| why he came about that belief?

Why can't we just assume the existence of an honest belief unless the
shooter tells us otherwise. That way we don't even have to ask the question.

--
Rob

chippy

19-07-2006, 08:51 PM

Rob wrote:

> chippy wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It is then up to the prosecution to show he didn't.
> > >
> > > Why? it has been said here it is enough to state he had an honest
> > > bbelief, now, why does he all of a sudden have to explain (aka
> > > prove) why he came about that belief?
>
> Why can't we just assume the existence of an honest belief unless the
> shooter tells us otherwise. That way we don't even have to ask the
> question.

eH? i THOUGHT WE DID NOW?

--
wigwambam

Alex Heney

19-07-2006, 09:23 PM

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 15:12:06 GMT, AlanG <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 10:57:15 +0100, Kim Bolton <nospam@all.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>TD wrote:
>>
>>>I also note that in the Panorama transcript that Kev frequently refers to, a
>>>Chief Constable Wilding (Head of the Suicide Bomber Working Party) appears
>>>to claim that, in developing Operation Kratos, they had not planned for a
>>>suspect doing something that many if not most Londoners do every weekday
>>>morning - take some form of public transport.
>>
>>Once upon a time I sat on the Staff Committee of the establishment I
>>worked at.
>>
>>During this time, major roadworks had creeated a large new roundabout
>>outside the area used by the Admin bulidings. Lorries and van used to
>>park on the roundabout, while their drivers breakfasted at a local
>>cafe.
>>
>>Having been trained in various forms of demolition and other uses for
>>explosives, I put it to the Commmittee that a lorry loaded with
>>explosives, if parked with the others and detonated, would flatten the
>>Admin buildings and cause injuries and loss of life.
>>
>>The Committee's recommendations wound their way up to Management, who
>>dismissed the idea of the lorry-bomb out of hand - whoever heard of a
>>lorry-bomb, they said.
>>
>>Three months later, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by a
>>lorry-bomb with the loss of over 200 lives.
>>
>>The next day, the local Council were painting double yellow lines on
>>the roundabout, the police had copious 'no parking' notices present,
>>and for some time after patrolled the roundabout during the morning
>>rush-hour.
>
>Double yellow lines and no parking signs will stop car bombers??

Of course not.

But they will stop almost everybody, so the car bombers would stand
out a lot more.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Sorry, I forgot all about the Amnesia Conference!
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Alex Heney

19-07-2006, 09:26 PM

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 15:16:04 GMT, AlanG <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:21:59 +0100, "The Todal" <deadmailbox@beeb.net>
>wrote:
>
>>
>e of the experienced.
>>
>>LOL!
>>And of course, much the same happened with 9/11. A report had already been
>>circulated at Presidential level, warning that planes might be hijacked and
>>crashed into buildings, but because it had never happened yet and seemed so
>>unlikely, nobody thought it necessary to take any action.
>>
>Then they stopped people taking corkscrews and nailfiles on board
>instead of securing the flightdeck.
>

No.

*As well as*, not "instead of".

And it makes sense, because some aircrew would open the flight deck
doors if they knew their cabin crew were being seriously threatened.

>And of course if 'security experts' had not drummed into people to
>cooperate with hijackers the passengers would likely have taken them
>out.
>

Which had been the best advice until the rules were changed by the
11/9 occurrences.

It was fare more likely in "conventional" hijackings that all the
passengers would survive if they cooperated with the hijackers.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Hard work has a future payoff. Laziness pays off now.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Alex Heney

19-07-2006, 09:30 PM

On 19 Jul 2006 18:17:02 GMT, "chippy" <chippy@wood.co.uk> wrote:

>Alex Heney wrote:
>
>> On 18 Jul 2006 19:40:00 GMT, "chippy" <chippy@wood.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > Uno-Hoo! wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Sorry but he has to do nothing of the sort. He merely has to show
>> >> that he has an honest belief. He does not even have to show that
>> that >> honest belief was reasonable. He most certainly does not have
>> to show >> that he arrived at the honest belief via first hand
>> information >> because the law does not require that.
>> >
>> > Right, so all the police officer has to say, is "I have honest
>> > belief" then clam up, and not say why?
>> > Obviously a member of the public would have to say why he held that
>> > belief, but a police officer would not.
>>
>> He will have to adduce sufficient evidence to show that he could
>> have held that belief.
>>
>> It is then up to the prosecution to show he didn't.
>
>Why? it has been said here it is enough to state he had an honest
>bbelief, now, why does he all of a sudden have to explain (aka prove)
>why he came about that belief?

I don't think anybody has said he merely has to state that he has such
a belief.

He does not have to prove that he did, nor does it *have* to be
reasonable (although that will inevitably play a large part in the
jury decision).

He has to raise sufficient evidence to show that it was at least
remotely credible he *could* have held that belief. That isn't even
close to proving he did have it.

And of course, he is certain to be cross examined on that belief, and
why he held it, and his responses (or lack thereof) will again help
the jury to decide.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
How come there's only one Monopolies Commission?
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Richard Miller

19-07-2006, 10:10 PM

In message <s20rb2tlmi60k1r027cdfdbtri61nd24r5@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
<me8@privacy.net> writes
>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 23:41:13 +0100, hummingbird
><RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>
>>What we saw yesterday was the direct consequence of this not being
>>the legal position. It is nothing less than an attack on democratic
>>accountability and is the sort of sham which we expect to see in
>>dictatorships and lawless countries.
>
>Actually, it is the exact opposite, since this law has not been
>promulgated by parliament, but is the considered reasoning of a number
>of senior judges over the years.

Not quite. The judges have never said that a belief founded without any
personal assessment is reasonable, as they have never, to my knowledge,
been called upon to rule on that point.

Therefore the case has not proceeded because the CPS has prejudged this
issue.
--
Richard Miller

Richard Miller

19-07-2006, 10:17 PM

In message <cd0rb259gbuiek0pe8qmrcnguqv9kpi1j2@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
<me8@privacy.net> writes

>So you think the firearms officers were just told he was "Osman"?

All the available information would suggest that, yes. They were staking
out an address associated with Osman. The surveillance officers who
wrongly made the identification identified him as Osman. The police
throughout believed they were following someone who might be Osman -
from recent leaks, it seems that many of them were actually doubtful
that he was even their suspected terrorist, let alone on a mission. So
yes, given that the whole operation turned on the fact that they thought
they had identified and were following Osman, it seems likely to me that
the firearms officers were told, "Yes, it's Osman".

>
>I thought they had been told he was a terrorist.

Osman is a terrorist. They were told that de Menezes was Osman. It is
possible that the firearms team are so out of the loop as to what is
going on that they had no idea at all who the guy was supposed to be,
but that seems to imply a degree of incompetence and organisational
meltdown that I was not proposing to imply in the police.

>
>And in the context they were involved in, i cannot imagine them
>thinking that meant anything but an active terrorist.

Then that is, I'm afraid, a failure of imagination on your part. I can
see nothing in anything that happened that day that could conceivably
have led anyone to make an assessment that this guy was on a bombing
mission even after he had wrongly been identified as Osman.

>
>I also find it hard to believe that the CPS think anything else.

So I gather. But then you don't have regular contact with their
decisions.
--
Richard Miller

Richard Miller

19-07-2006, 10:27 PM

In message <oj0rb25u83san5se2rlhpgfv3aigi4vgnr@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
<me8@privacy.net> writes
>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 22:29:30 +0100, Mike <mike@kempston.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 13:12:02 +0100, "Uno-Hoo!"
>><Uno-Hoo@NOSPAMbigfootdotcom> wrote:
>>
>>>Sorry but he has to do nothing of the sort. He merely has to show that he
>>>has an honest belief. He does not even have to show that that honest belief
>>>was reasonable. He most certainly does not have to show that he arrived at
>>>the honest belief via first hand information because the law does not
>>>require that.
>>
>>Excuse me being blunt, but readers may wish to place rather more
>>reliance on the opinion of the respected lawyers who are posting to
>>this thread than on the opinion of a retired traffic inspector from
>>the sticks who thinks he knows the law better than the lawyers.
>
>But the "respected lawyers" (I think Richard is the only actual lawyer
>posting on the thread, BICBW) are saying exactly the same thing.
>
>Richard's argument is not against that point, which he accepts, but
>about whether they needed to be specifically told that the suspect had
>a bomb in order to reach that belief.

Or more precisely, that they had to hold an honest belief not only that
he was Osman but also that he was on a bombing mission at that precise
moment.

And I am saying that the first hand/second hand issue is untested; my
personal belief being that because of the extreme onus on any individual
taking another's life, the Courts would require a personal assessment
rather than accepting a belief that depended 100% on hearsay and with no
attempt whatsoever to confirm that hearsay by a personal assessment of
the facts.
--
Richard Miller

Kim Bolton

19-07-2006, 11:13 PM

AlanG wrote:

>On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:46:32 +0100, Cynic <cynic_999@yahoo.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 16:04:36 GMT, AlanG <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>Double yellow lines and no parking signs will stop car bombers??
>>
>>>>In the last 23 years no lorry bombs have gone off there, neither have
>>>>any lorries even parked there ;-)
>>
>>>Law abiding car bombers round there.
>>
>>The point of the parking law is that it would make a parked lorry look
>>suspicious, and so it is likely to be investigated PDQ.
>
>Why?
>All that would happen is a cop or a traffic warden would stick a
>ticket on it and bugger off.
>
>> Not that that
>>would make any difference to a suicide bomber, but it would to a
>>non-suicidal bomber who leaves a timebomb in the lorry and legs it.
>
>Car bombers are not likely to take note of waiting restrictions and
>no bombing notices

You have it in one.

Alex Heney

20-07-2006, 12:33 AM

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 22:10:13 +0100, Richard Miller
<richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <s20rb2tlmi60k1r027cdfdbtri61nd24r5@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
><me8@privacy.net> writes
>>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 23:41:13 +0100, hummingbird
>><RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>
>>>What we saw yesterday was the direct consequence of this not being
>>>the legal position. It is nothing less than an attack on democratic
>>>accountability and is the sort of sham which we expect to see in
>>>dictatorships and lawless countries.
>>
>>Actually, it is the exact opposite, since this law has not been
>>promulgated by parliament, but is the considered reasoning of a number
>>of senior judges over the years.
>
>Not quite. The judges have never said that a belief founded without any
>personal assessment is reasonable, as they have never, to my knowledge,
>been called upon to rule on that point.
>

True, but there is no need for them to be called on to so rule.

The rulings to date make it quite clear that if the belief is
genuinely held, then it is sufficient defence. And that whether it was
"reasonable" to hold it is irrelevant if it was genuinely held.

I can't see how this can reasonably be re-interpreted to say "except
where the belief was arrived at as a result of things he was told".
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Illiterate?... Write for free help.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Alex Heney

20-07-2006, 12:37 AM

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 22:17:26 +0100, Richard Miller
<richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <cd0rb259gbuiek0pe8qmrcnguqv9kpi1j2@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
><me8@privacy.net> writes
>
<snip>

>>
>>And in the context they were involved in, i cannot imagine them
>>thinking that meant anything but an active terrorist.
>
>Then that is, I'm afraid, a failure of imagination on your part. I can
>see nothing in anything that happened that day that could conceivably
>have led anyone to make an assessment that this guy was on a bombing
>mission even after he had wrongly been identified as Osman.
>

We will just have to agree to differ here.

To me, it is inconceivable that any firearms officer receiving orders
that said basically "this guy is a suicide bomber. You have to stop
him" would think anything other than that if he wasn't stopped, he was
going to blow himself up.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
These are only my opinions. You should see my convictions.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

hummingbird

20-07-2006, 08:09 AM

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 00:33:46 +0100 'Alex Heney'
posted this onto uk.politics.misc:

>On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 22:10:13 +0100, Richard Miller
><richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <s20rb2tlmi60k1r027cdfdbtri61nd24r5@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
>><me8@privacy.net> writes
>>>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 23:41:13 +0100, hummingbird
>>><RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>What we saw yesterday was the direct consequence of this not being
>>>>the legal position. It is nothing less than an attack on democratic
>>>>accountability and is the sort of sham which we expect to see in
>>>>dictatorships and lawless countries.
>>>
>>>Actually, it is the exact opposite, since this law has not been
>>>promulgated by parliament, but is the considered reasoning of a number
>>>of senior judges over the years.
>>
>>Not quite. The judges have never said that a belief founded without any
>>personal assessment is reasonable, as they have never, to my knowledge,
>>been called upon to rule on that point.
>>
>
>True, but there is no need for them to be called on to so rule.
>
>The rulings to date make it quite clear that if the belief is
>genuinely held, then it is sufficient defence. And that whether it was
>"reasonable" to hold it is irrelevant if it was genuinely held.

Therein lies the reason why the law needs changing urgently to
re-define accountability.

Currently it's wrongly predicated and is an open door for a police
gunman to claim honest belief even though he never came to that
conclusion from his own assessment of the circumstances - and is
not required to.

A police gunman who is entirely incapable of making such judgements
in these situations (quite a few of them I surmise) is nevertheless
allowed on the streets to kill innocent people with potential impunity
from accountability.

It has no common sense or logic afaics and violates natural justice.

I suggest that one explanation is that it exists to accomodate
judgemental inadequacy within the police, since they are more likely
to use it than other killers not least because of the way in which
these operations are organised.

It is in fact a very convenient get-out-of-jail-free card.

I might even speculate that the police knowingly organise these
operations to ensure sufficient confusion of accountability exists at
ground level to create the circumstances in which they can then claim
honest belief if a suspect is killed.

This may sound a bit too conspiratorial but I have said for months now
that the very idea of the operational commander being located 5 miles
away in an office is utterly absurd and is bound to lead to confusions
- and that's exactly what we saw happen on that July day last year.

>I can't see how this can reasonably be re-interpreted to say "except
>where the belief was arrived at as a result of things he was told".

--
"Blair's inner circle and its ferocious grab for power":
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1747772,00.html

"In the guise of fighting terrorism and maintaining public order,
Tony Blair's Government has quietly and systematically taken power
from Parliament and the British people. The author [Henry Porter]
charts a nine-year assault on civil liberties that reveals the
danger of trading freedom for security":
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1129827.ece

hummingbird

20-07-2006, 08:09 AM

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 01:45:10 +0100 'Alex Heney'
posted this onto uk.politics.misc:

>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 23:41:13 +0100, hummingbird
><RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>
>>What we saw yesterday was the direct consequence of this not being
>>the legal position. It is nothing less than an attack on democratic
>>accountability and is the sort of sham which we expect to see in
>>dictatorships and lawless countries.
>
>Actually, it is the exact opposite, since this law has not been
>promulgated by parliament, but is the considered reasoning of a number
>of senior judges over the years.

I'm sure judges have also been known to attack democracy, intended
or not.

--
"Blair's inner circle and its ferocious grab for power":
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1747772,00.html

"In the guise of fighting terrorism and maintaining public order,
Tony Blair's Government has quietly and systematically taken power
from Parliament and the British people. The author [Henry Porter]
charts a nine-year assault on civil liberties that reveals the
danger of trading freedom for security":
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1129827.ece

hummingbird

20-07-2006, 08:12 AM

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 01:46:48 +0100 'Alex Heney'
posted this onto uk.politics.misc:

>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 23:43:16 +0100, hummingbird
><RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 22:09:12 +0100 'Alex Heney'
>>posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>
><snip>
>
>>>
>>>The burden of proof is on the prosecution. (and you might note that I
>>>am by no means the only one telling you this - some of the others are
>>>lawyers).
>>
>>Sequence of posts problems...
>>But I thought this issue was debated months ago and that it was
>>clearly the defence duty to prove their honest belief - apparently
>>not.
>>
>>Forgive me for thinking that we live in an accountable democracy.
>
>What a silly thought.
>
>But irrelevant to this question.
>
>It would hardly make it a more accountable democracy if parliament
>changed the law to override what the courts have decided over many
>years, would it?

It could. Whilst I generally have much more confidence in courts than
politicians, this seems to me to be a situation where the courts have
got it seriously wrong for the reasons I've set out in other posts.

--
"Blair's inner circle and its ferocious grab for power":
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1747772,00.html

"In the guise of fighting terrorism and maintaining public order,
Tony Blair's Government has quietly and systematically taken power
from Parliament and the British people. The author [Henry Porter]
charts a nine-year assault on civil liberties that reveals the
danger of trading freedom for security":
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1129827.ece

hummingbird

20-07-2006, 08:33 AM

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 01:43:38 +0100 'Alex Heney'
posted this onto uk.politics.misc:

>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 23:23:20 +0100, hummingbird
><RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 22:12:49 +0100 'Alex Heney'
>>posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>
>>>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 12:34:12 +0100, hummingbird
>>><RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 08:57:19 GMT 'Scorpius'
>>>>posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 09:19:24 +0100, hummingbird
>>>>><RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Afaik a defence of *honest belief* is available under the law but it's
>>>>>>for the defence to prove, not the prosecution.
>>>>
>>>>>In Common Law the defense does not have to prove anything - it is the
>>>>>job of the state to prove that the defendant is guilty.
>>>>
>>>>Yes I appreciate that.
>>>
>>>You obviously don't, from your response.
>>
>>No, I'm saying that the presumption of innocence is fine but when a
>>police gunman kills an innocent civilian and does not deny it, there
>>must be clear accountability. Prima facie evidence says he's guilty.
>>If you like, he was caught red-handed with a smoking gun.
>>
>>I'm prepared to accept a plea of honest belief providing it was formed
>>by the gunman from personal assessment of the circumstances - not from
>>information passed to him 2nd or 3rd hand - and stands up to scrutiny
>>in a court.
>>
>>IOW the legal situation which should exist is that each person who
>>kills is directly responsible for his/her actions, irrespective of
>>what he may be told by his boss.
>>
>>The present situation is that the police are being allowed to use
>>their gunmen as *death squads* who are then not responsible for their
>>actions, since any one of them can simply claim honest belief based
>>upon information passed to him by his boss.
>>
>>Can you see what I'm getting at?
>
>Yes, but it is not what you were arguing in the point above.

? Maybe I didn't word myself clearly enough. This is usenet!

>And the only way you are going to get what you want is for you to
>become a judge who sits on appeals, or to get parliament to legislate
>for a law that is almost entirely common law at present.

I appreciate that. The solution is for Parliament to pass a law.
But that may conflict with vested interests - eg the police.

>And I don't agree with you either :-)

That does not make my proposal wrong.

--
"Blair's inner circle and its ferocious grab for power":
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1747772,00.html

"In the guise of fighting terrorism and maintaining public order,
Tony Blair's Government has quietly and systematically taken power
from Parliament and the British people. The author [Henry Porter]
charts a nine-year assault on civil liberties that reveals the
danger of trading freedom for security":
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1129827.ece

hummingbird

20-07-2006, 08:48 AM

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 12:25:22 +0100 'TD'
posted this onto uk.politics.misc:

>
>"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>news:kjfpb293e4v4bc60jp9spoeqb6k67f9o5i@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:08:45 +0100 'TD'
>> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>
>>>
>>>"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>>>news:i09pb25eodjv8em7l00v61j25b2uu90fhk@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 08:27:25 +0100 'Richard Miller'
>>>> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>>>
>>>>>In message <1bunb2tqe6f0ic026o6oc0l7i9qjfab3ec@4ax.com>, hummingbird
>>>>><RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> writes
>>>>>
>>>>>>When you kill someone it is you (not the prosecution) who have to prove
>>>>>>BRD that you held the *honest belief* that the other person was an
>>>>>>imminent threat. The law simply provides *honest belief* as a defence
>>>>>>but that doesn't mean the prosecution need to disprove it.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, that is not correct. If the defence raises self-defence and honest
>>>>>belief as an issue, the prosecution is required to prove it beyond
>>>>>reasonable doubt.
>>>>
>>>> So it appears the law does not require each person to be accountable
>>>> for their actions based upon their own assessment of the circumstances
>>>> and is not required to prove BRD that his reasons were justified. Do I
>>>> get the feeling that the law is an ass?
>>>
>>>You should be getting the feeling that this supports the presumption of
>>>innocence: i.e. it is for the prosecution to prove BRD that the shooter
>>>could not have genuinely held the honest belief.
>>
>> I believe when a person shoots another in cold blood, the presumption
>> should be that he is guilty: "I saw him shoot the guy My Lord".
>
>How on earth can you reconcile this belief with support for the presumption
>of innocence?!

Very easily. I have explained elsewhere that in this situation the
police gunman shot and killed a suspect and he is instinctively guilty
of murder - in fact he would not deny that he killed the suspect -
....but being 'a fair kinda guy', I'm prepared to accept a defence from
him of 'honest belief', providing it stands up to scrutiny in court.

One of the important factors in my scrutiny is that he formed his
honest belief from his personal assessment of the circumstances on the
ground and did not simply adopt it based upon information passed to
him by others. If I conclude that he made no assessment at all or
made a wrong assessment, I would reject his claim and find him guilty.

ISTM that holding armed agents of the state personally accountable
for their actions is the only way we can prevent them from killing
innocent people with impunity. I'm sorry you don't see it that way.

--
"Blair's inner circle and its ferocious grab for power":
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1747772,00.html

"In the guise of fighting terrorism and maintaining public order,
Tony Blair's Government has quietly and systematically taken power
from Parliament and the British people. The author [Henry Porter]
charts a nine-year assault on civil liberties that reveals the
danger of trading freedom for security":
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1129827.ece

hummingbird

20-07-2006, 08:49 AM

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 12:53:21 +0100 'Uno-Hoo!'
posted this onto uk.politics.misc:

>
>"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>news:kjfpb293e4v4bc60jp9spoeqb6k67f9o5i@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:08:45 +0100 'TD'
>> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>
>>>
>>>"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>>>news:i09pb25eodjv8em7l00v61j25b2uu90fhk@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 08:27:25 +0100 'Richard Miller'
>>>> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>>>
>>>>>In message <1bunb2tqe6f0ic026o6oc0l7i9qjfab3ec@4ax.com>, hummingbird
>>>>><RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> writes
>>>>>
>>>>>>When you kill someone it is you (not the prosecution) who have to prove
>>>>>>BRD that you held the *honest belief* that the other person was an
>>>>>>imminent threat. The law simply provides *honest belief* as a defence
>>>>>>but that doesn't mean the prosecution need to disprove it.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, that is not correct. If the defence raises self-defence and honest
>>>>>belief as an issue, the prosecution is required to prove it beyond
>>>>>reasonable doubt.
>>>>
>>>> So it appears the law does not require each person to be accountable
>>>> for their actions based upon their own assessment of the circumstances
>>>> and is not required to prove BRD that his reasons were justified. Do I
>>>> get the feeling that the law is an ass?
>>>
>>>You should be getting the feeling that this supports the presumption of
>>>innocence: i.e. it is for the prosecution to prove BRD that the shooter
>>>could not have genuinely held the honest belief.
>>
>> I believe when a person shoots another in cold blood, the presumption
>> should be that he is guilty: "I saw him shoot the guy My Lord".
>
>Guilty of what? Are you suggesting that every single time a person kills
>another person they are guilty of murder? You do talk some rot!

You don't understand the point I'm making. Ex-policemen often don't.

--
"Blair's inner circle and its ferocious grab for power":
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1747772,00.html

"In the guise of fighting terrorism and maintaining public order,
Tony Blair's Government has quietly and systematically taken power
from Parliament and the British people. The author [Henry Porter]
charts a nine-year assault on civil liberties that reveals the
danger of trading freedom for security":
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1129827.ece

hummingbird

20-07-2006, 08:49 AM

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 12:28:20 +0000 'Mike'
posted this onto uk.politics.misc:

>Uno-Hoo! wrote:
>> "hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>> news:kjfpb293e4v4bc60jp9spoeqb6k67f9o5i@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>I believe when a person shoots another in cold blood, the presumption
>>>should be that he is guilty: "I saw him shoot the guy My Lord".
>>
>> Guilty of what? Are you suggesting that every single time a person kills
>> another person they are guilty of murder? You do talk some rot!
>>
>
>He suggested nothing of the sort. He specified killing by shooting
>which, usually, indicates an intention to, at least, cause serious
>harm. That's enough for a prima facie case of murder and, once those
>facts are established BRD, it should the be for the killer to show
>lawful excuse.
>
>You have a very strange way of interpreting what other say - is that
>part of police training?

Thanks, exactly so.

--
"Blair's inner circle and its ferocious grab for power":
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1747772,00.html

"In the guise of fighting terrorism and maintaining public order,
Tony Blair's Government has quietly and systematically taken power
from Parliament and the British people. The author [Henry Porter]
charts a nine-year assault on civil liberties that reveals the
danger of trading freedom for security":
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1129827.ece

Kim Bolton

20-07-2006, 08:53 AM

Alex Heney wrote:

>To me, it is inconceivable that any firearms officer receiving orders
>that said basically "this guy is a suicide bomber. You have to stop
>him" would think anything other than that if he wasn't stopped, he was
>going to blow himself up.

The problem here is that comms over the radio channel almost certainly
won't be in plain English. AAIU people under observation are
designated something like X-ray = terrorist, Yankee = suspect, Zulu =
hostage/innocent member of public, ususally combined with a number.

de Menezes will have started out as a Zulu, but worked up the alphabet
scale for reasons we don't know.

On top of this, there will be other code-words, e.g for him being on a
mission, such as "X-ray One is Live, confirm X-ray One is Live".

At this point. C&C should come back with an order, such as the Kratos
word for termination with extreme prejudice. All these codewords are
designed to be clear and specific.

What seems to have muddied the waters is the suggestion that Dick said
something outside this, I recall it as being "whatever you do, don't
let him get on a train"; which the system of code words and phrases is
designed to avoid. It could be she said this to someone who was
operating the radio, and who translated this vague phrase into what he
thought was the appropriate code-word. There is also the suggestion
that the surveillance team were inexperienced; how much so we won't
know - but perhaps they had not be briefed or trained on the
codewords, and had resorted to plain English.

All this will be on the radio channels recordings; but these won't
make it into the public arena.

hummingbird

20-07-2006, 08:54 AM

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 22:53:26 +0100 'Alex Heney'
posted this onto uk.politics.misc:

>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 10:09:28 +0100, hummingbird
><RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 08:27:25 +0100 'Richard Miller'
>>posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>
>>>In message <1bunb2tqe6f0ic026o6oc0l7i9qjfab3ec@4ax.com>, hummingbird
>>><RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> writes
>>>
>>>>When you kill someone it is you (not the prosecution) who have to prove
>>>>BRD that you held the *honest belief* that the other person was an
>>>>imminent threat. The law simply provides *honest belief* as a defence
>>>>but that doesn't mean the prosecution need to disprove it.
>>>
>>>No, that is not correct. If the defence raises self-defence and honest
>>>belief as an issue, the prosecution is required to prove it beyond
>>>reasonable doubt.
>>
>>So it appears the law does not require each person to be accountable
>>for their actions based upon their own assessment of the circumstances
>>and is not required to prove BRD that his reasons were justified.
>
>That is correct.
>
>>Do I
>>get the feeling that the law is an ass?
>>
>
>I suspect you do. I am sure there are people who agree with you :-)

That's good. But it concerns me greatly that the flaw in the current
legal position (stunningly obvious to me) is not also obvious to some
others who are likely more legally qualified than myself.

>>>>Otherwise every murderer would simply claim *honest belief* and walk
>>>>free because it's virtually impossible to disprove.
>>>
>>>I don't think so. There are very few cases in which such a claim would
>>>be credible.
>>
>>In cases where this defence is claimed, ISTM the obligation is upon
>>the accused to prove, not the prosecution.
>
>The accused merely has to adduce sufficient evidence to show that
>there is that possibility. i.e it must be at least somewhat credible
>that he could have held that belief.
>
>If he does that, then it is up to the prosecution to show that the
>possibility was not actually fact.

As said, tantamount to a get-out-of-jail-free card.

--
"Blair's inner circle and its ferocious grab for power":
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1747772,00.html

"In the guise of fighting terrorism and maintaining public order,
Tony Blair's Government has quietly and systematically taken power
from Parliament and the British people. The author [Henry Porter]
charts a nine-year assault on civil liberties that reveals the
danger of trading freedom for security":
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1129827.ece

hummingbird

20-07-2006, 09:59 AM

On 19 Jul 2006 18:21:06 GMT 'chippy'
posted this onto uk.politics.misc:

>hummingbird wrote:
>> That doesn't satisfy my fundamental belief that each person who kills
>> another - policeman or not - must be directly accountable for his
>> actions and must not be allowed to hide behind a defence of honest
>> belief based upon information passed to him by his boss.
>> He must form his own honest belief and be prepared to stand it up in
>> court for scrutiny.
>
>It is an awkward situation, because at times, say in a seige, the
>marksman will take position and aim at one specific window, on command
>of his spotter, he will take out the hostage taker.

If he takes out the hostage-taker that's fine.

But he needs to be as sure as possible that he's not taking out an
innocent hostage. If there's uncertainty, he should hold fire. If
the policeman kills an innocent hostage who was deliberately dressed
up to look like a hostage-taker, IMV that should be sufficient to
provide the police gunman with an 'honest belief' defence.

>> What we saw yesterday was the direct consequence of this not being
>> the legal position. It is nothing less than an attack on democratic
>> accountability and is the sort of sham which we expect to see in
>> dictatorships and lawless countries.
>
>Quite.

--
"Blair's inner circle and its ferocious grab for power":
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1747772,00.html

"In the guise of fighting terrorism and maintaining public order,
Tony Blair's Government has quietly and systematically taken power
from Parliament and the British people. The author [Henry Porter]
charts a nine-year assault on civil liberties that reveals the
danger of trading freedom for security":
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1129827.ece

hummingbird

20-07-2006, 10:13 AM

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:37:31 +0100 'TD'
posted this onto uk.politics.misc:

>"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>news:kjfpb293e4v4bc60jp9spoeqb6k67f9o5i@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:08:45 +0100 'TD'
>> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>
>>>
>>>"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>>>news:i09pb25eodjv8em7l00v61j25b2uu90fhk@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 08:27:25 +0100 'Richard Miller'
>>>> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>>>
>>>>>In message <1bunb2tqe6f0ic026o6oc0l7i9qjfab3ec@4ax.com>, hummingbird
>>>>><RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> writes
>>>>>
>>>>>>When you kill someone it is you (not the prosecution) who have to prove
>>>>>>BRD that you held the *honest belief* that the other person was an
>>>>>>imminent threat. The law simply provides *honest belief* as a defence
>>>>>>but that doesn't mean the prosecution need to disprove it.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, that is not correct. If the defence raises self-defence and honest
>>>>>belief as an issue, the prosecution is required to prove it beyond
>>>>>reasonable doubt.
>>>>
>>>> So it appears the law does not require each person to be accountable
>>>> for their actions based upon their own assessment of the circumstances
>>>> and is not required to prove BRD that his reasons were justified. Do I
>>>> get the feeling that the law is an ass?
>>>
>>>You should be getting the feeling that this supports the presumption of
>>>innocence: i.e. it is for the prosecution to prove BRD that the shooter
>>>could not have genuinely held the honest belief.
>>
>> I believe when a person shoots another in cold blood,
>
>What do you mean by 'in cold blood'?

The same as other people mean.

>> the presumption
>> should be that he is guilty: "I saw him shoot the guy My Lord".
>
>The presumption of innocence applies to everyone, and every man is entitled
>to a fair trial.

Agreed but that's not what you are arguing.

>> I have no problem whatsoever with the accused putting up a defence
>> of *honest belief* providing that he can prove it BRD to a court.
>> I do not believe it should be the duty of the court to disprove it.
>
>It's the job of the prosecution to prove the man is guilty. It's the duty
>of the court to try the man fairly.

Yes I know what the law currently says but my point in that it is
wrong and needs amending to ensure that whoever pulls the trigger is
personally accountable for his/her actions.

This actually improves the court's duty to try the defendent fairly.

>> The current legal situation is a farce, coincidentally framed (by
>> chance or intent) to provide police gunmen and other agents of the
>> state with a get-out-of-jail-free card, but not most other killers.
>
>Emotive rubbish.

You have no grounds to say that.
I sometimes wonder if you understand what 'accountability' means TD.

>In fact the _law_ applies the same rule about reasonable force to everyone.
>There is no clause exempting firearms officers.

I know that but I've said elsewhere that this get-out is mainly used
by police gunmen (frankly I often wonder if they are actually always
policemen) and I believe there is more than a remote possibility that
the police take advantage of it by ensuring that their operational
procedures allow plenty of confusion to prevent the law from hanging
the label of *accountable* onto any single person.

You may have noticed that similar accountability confusions exist in
many other areas of government. It seems that whenever things go
wrong, nobody is accountable.
Eg: see Blair blaming his Iraq blunders onto poor Intel. In reality
he should be held personally accountable for the decision and not
be permitted to blame it onto others.

>The only reasonable dispute
>here is over CPS _policy_ when it comes to prosecuting agents of the state.

--
"Blair's inner circle and its ferocious grab for power":
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1747772,00.html

"In the guise of fighting terrorism and maintaining public order,
Tony Blair's Government has quietly and systematically taken power
from Parliament and the British people. The author [Henry Porter]
charts a nine-year assault on civil liberties that reveals the
danger of trading freedom for security":
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1129827.ece

Cynic

20-07-2006, 10:38 AM

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 08:53:25 +0100, Kim Bolton <nospam@all.invalid>
wrote:

>All this will be on the radio channels recordings; but these won't
>make it into the public arena.

IIUC it was stated that the radio comms on that day were not recorded.

--
Cynic

Cynic

20-07-2006, 10:43 AM

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 23:13:43 +0100, Kim Bolton <nospam@all.invalid>
wrote:

>>Car bombers are not likely to take note of waiting restrictions and
>>no bombing notices
>
>You have it in one.

But nearly everyone else would. Which would make the parked truck
bomb stick out like a dog's bollocks. Which would certainly make it
*more likely* to be detected as a threat before it explodes than if
its presence was completely unremarkable.

--
Cynic

Cynic

20-07-2006, 10:48 AM

On 19 Jul 2006 18:31:10 GMT, "chippy" <chippy@wood.co.uk> wrote:

>> The point of the parking law is that it would make a parked lorry look
>> suspicious, and so it is likely to be investigated PDQ. Not that that
>> would make any difference to a suicide bomber, but it would to a
>> non-suicidal bomber who leaves a timebomb in the lorry and legs it.

>even London traffic wardens do not act that quick, and what would their
>first actions be? hang around the lorrie for a few minutes, issue a
>ticket, then return next day to tow it away?

That's what would happen if it was assumed to be simply an illegally
parked truck, yes.

But if you parked a truck in the no-parking area outside No 10 Downing
Street, I'd take a bet that it would be acted upon PDQ, and would
receive a tad more attention than simply issuing a parking ticket.

--
Cynic

Cynic

20-07-2006, 10:51 AM

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 21:30:42 +0100, Alex Heney <me8@privacy.net>
wrote:

>And of course, he is certain to be cross examined on that belief, and
>why he held it, and his responses (or lack thereof) will again help
>the jury to decide.

Wrong. There is little chance in the Menezes case that the killer
will ever be cross-examined about his alleged belief.

And *that* is what I and others consider to be very, very wrong.

If he were to stand trial, and is cross-examined by a barrister who is
*not* employed by the state, and the jury decide that the belief was
honestly held (or has not been disputed BRD), *then* I will be
satisfied.

--
Cynic

Alex Heney

20-07-2006, 11:20 AM

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 08:33:40 +0100, hummingbird
<RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 01:43:38 +0100 'Alex Heney'
>posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
<snip>

>
>I appreciate that. The solution is for Parliament to pass a law.
>But that may conflict with vested interests - eg the police.
>
>>And I don't agree with you either :-)
>
>That does not make my proposal wrong.

Agreed.

What the situation *should* be is a matter of opinion. There is no
"right" or "wrong" opinion.

Mine differs from yours, but that doesn't make either of us wrong.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Recovery program for excessive talkers: On-and-on-Anon.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Mr X

20-07-2006, 11:23 AM

In article <bojub2tdeh23j6cppnvd085a0f4c69tc6i@4ax.com>, Cynic
<cynic_999@yahoo.co.uk> writes

>On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 08:53:25 +0100, Kim Bolton <nospam@all.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>All this will be on the radio channels recordings; but these won't
>>make it into the public arena.
>
>IIUC it was stated that the radio comms on that day were not recorded.

How strange

But a day or so later everything started to work fine again...
--
Mr X

Alex Heney

20-07-2006, 11:26 AM

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 08:09:48 +0100, hummingbird
<RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 00:33:46 +0100 'Alex Heney'
>posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>
<snip>

>
>I suggest that one explanation is that it exists to accomodate
>judgemental inadequacy within the police, since they are more likely
>to use it than other killers not least because of the way in which
>these operations are organised.
>

Nope.

If that were true, then that is how it would have developed.

But it hasn't. It was "ordinary" cases which developed the "genuine
belief" part of the self-defence defence to a murder (or assault)
charge.

I don't know of a case where a policeman has been tried and used that
defence, although in this case (and probably others) it was used to
decide there was no point in prosecuting at all.

>It is in fact a very convenient get-out-of-jail-free card.
>
>I might even speculate that the police knowingly organise these
>operations to ensure sufficient confusion of accountability exists at
>ground level to create the circumstances in which they can then claim
>honest belief if a suspect is killed.
>
>This may sound a bit too conspiratorial but I have said for months now
>that the very idea of the operational commander being located 5 miles
>away in an office is utterly absurd and is bound to lead to confusions
>- and that's exactly what we saw happen on that July day last year.
>

And as I said before, you can't ignore the laws of physics.

Last time I said it, people picked up on the fact that it *is*
possible to get communications working underground, but that wasn't
the main point.

The commander will be coordinating what is happening. That can only
feasibly be done from a fixed location, unless there is a sufficient
gap in proceedings to move to another fixed location.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
A Bugless Program is an Abstract Theoretical Concept.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Kim Bolton

20-07-2006, 11:29 AM

Cynic wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 08:53:25 +0100, Kim Bolton <nospam@all.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>All this will be on the radio channels recordings; but these won't
>>make it into the public arena.
>
>IIUC it was stated that the radio comms on that day were not recorded.

I find that hard to believe!

For an event of this magnitude I would expect that logs and radio
recordings were made, even if the aim was only to review them later
and use them to train others.

OTOH, no recordings....no pack drill.....

Alex Heney

20-07-2006, 11:33 AM

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 08:48:06 +0100, hummingbird
<RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 12:25:22 +0100 'TD'
>posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>
<snip>

>
>Very easily. I have explained elsewhere that in this situation the
>police gunman shot and killed a suspect and he is instinctively guilty
>of murder - in fact he would not deny that he killed the suspect -
>...but being 'a fair kinda guy', I'm prepared to accept a defence from
>him of 'honest belief', providing it stands up to scrutiny in court.
>
>One of the important factors in my scrutiny is that he formed his
>honest belief from his personal assessment of the circumstances on the
>ground and did not simply adopt it based upon information passed to
>him by others. If I conclude that he made no assessment at all or
>made a wrong assessment, I would reject his claim and find him guilty.

What you are really saying is that an honest belief is not enough.

That it must be a "reasonable" belief as well.

Many would agree with you.

I'm not convinced. You say it lets an incompetent policeman get away
with it - well yes, incompetence isn't murder.

It is very arguable that there should be another definition of
manslaughter where there was an honest belief that wasn't reasonable.
Because it is arguable that in that situation, the death is down to
negligence on the part of the killer in not assessing the situation
well enough.

But if an honest belief *was* held, no matter how it was arrived at,
then murder is not IMO a valid charge, because the mens rea was not
present.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
No! No! Windows isn't a virus. Viruses do something.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Kim Bolton

20-07-2006, 11:37 AM

Cynic wrote:

>On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 23:13:43 +0100, Kim Bolton <nospam@all.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>>Car bombers are not likely to take note of waiting restrictions and
>>>no bombing notices
>>
>>You have it in one.
>
>But nearly everyone else would. Which would make the parked truck
>bomb stick out like a dog's bollocks. Which would certainly make it
>*more likely* to be detected as a threat before it explodes than if
>its presence was completely unremarkable.

AlanG wrote the "Car bombers..." part.

When I said "You have it one" I was pointing up precisely what you
have said above, and what AlanG seems to have overlooked; in CT one
criterion is called "the presence of the abnormal", in this case the
unusual parked lorry; the "absence of the normal" being the other.

Alex Heney

20-07-2006, 11:38 AM

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 10:51:53 +0100, Cynic <cynic_999@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 21:30:42 +0100, Alex Heney <me8@privacy.net>
>wrote:
>
>>And of course, he is certain to be cross examined on that belief, and
>>why he held it, and his responses (or lack thereof) will again help
>>the jury to decide.
>
>Wrong.

You mean absolutely correct, but irrelevant to the Menezes case.

I was not talking about the shooters in this particular case, but more
generally there, of what would happen if a case *did* get to court.

> There is little chance in the Menezes case that the killer
>will ever be cross-examined about his alleged belief.
>

Of course. That would probably only happen if he were being tried for
murder.

>And *that* is what I and others consider to be very, very wrong.
>
>If he were to stand trial, and is cross-examined by a barrister who is
>*not* employed by the state, and the jury decide that the belief was
>honestly held (or has not been disputed BRD), *then* I will be
>satisfied.

Agreed.

As I have already said several times, I think the threshold for
prosecution (i.e. the likelihood of success) should be significantly
lower in the case of any public servant suspected of crimes "in
office".
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Too much month at the end of the money.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

20-07-2006, 12:03 PM

"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
news:ajhub21c99dcg8pnf09dfjd4ltq7qr298q@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:37:31 +0100 'TD'
> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>
>>"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>>news:kjfpb293e4v4bc60jp9spoeqb6k67f9o5i@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:08:45 +0100 'TD'
>>> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:i09pb25eodjv8em7l00v61j25b2uu90fhk@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 08:27:25 +0100 'Richard Miller'
>>>>> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In message <1bunb2tqe6f0ic026o6oc0l7i9qjfab3ec@4ax.com>, hummingbird
>>>>>><RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> writes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>When you kill someone it is you (not the prosecution) who have to
>>>>>>>prove
>>>>>>>BRD that you held the *honest belief* that the other person was an
>>>>>>>imminent threat. The law simply provides *honest belief* as a defence
>>>>>>>but that doesn't mean the prosecution need to disprove it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, that is not correct. If the defence raises self-defence and honest
>>>>>>belief as an issue, the prosecution is required to prove it beyond
>>>>>>reasonable doubt.
>>>>>
>>>>> So it appears the law does not require each person to be accountable
>>>>> for their actions based upon their own assessment of the circumstances
>>>>> and is not required to prove BRD that his reasons were justified. Do I
>>>>> get the feeling that the law is an ass?
>>>>
>>>>You should be getting the feeling that this supports the presumption of
>>>>innocence: i.e. it is for the prosecution to prove BRD that the shooter
>>>>could not have genuinely held the honest belief.
>>>
>>> I believe when a person shoots another in cold blood,
>>
>>What do you mean by 'in cold blood'?
>
> The same as other people mean.

Come on, spell it out. Not trying to catch you out, I want to make sure we
are both talking about the same thing.

>>> the presumption
>>> should be that he is guilty: "I saw him shoot the guy My Lord".
>>
>>The presumption of innocence applies to everyone, and every man is
>>entitled
>>to a fair trial.
>
> Agreed but that's not what you are arguing.

If you recall, you are the one arguing that there should be a presumption of
guilt for police firearms officers who kill someone, and I'm the one arguing
that the presumption of innocence should apply to everyone.

>>> I have no problem whatsoever with the accused putting up a defence
>>> of *honest belief* providing that he can prove it BRD to a court.
>>> I do not believe it should be the duty of the court to disprove it.
>>
>>It's the job of the prosecution to prove the man is guilty. It's the duty
>>of the court to try the man fairly.
>
> Yes I know what the law currently says but my point in that it is
> wrong and needs amending to ensure that whoever pulls the trigger is
> personally accountable for his/her actions.
>
> This actually improves the court's duty to try the defendent fairly.

You think it improves the fairness of the trial by having the court _and_
prosecution attempt to prove the man is guilty? In that case, why bother
having a prosecution at all? Presumably you think our adversarial system is
inadequate?

>>> The current legal situation is a farce, coincidentally framed (by
>>> chance or intent) to provide police gunmen and other agents of the
>>> state with a get-out-of-jail-free card, but not most other killers.
>>
>>Emotive rubbish.
>
> You have no grounds to say that.

My grounds are the use of words like 'farce', 'gunmen', 'get out of jail
free card', 'killers', and so on... it's a pretty meaningless sentence.

<snip>

Mike

20-07-2006, 12:06 PM

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:26:21 +0100, Alex Heney <me8@privacy.net>
wrote:

>And as I said before, you can't ignore the laws of physics.
>
>Last time I said it, people picked up on the fact that it *is*
>possible to get communications working underground, but that wasn't
>the main point.

So why claim once again that the laws of physics are remotely
relevant? Why distract attention from your "main point" by an
irrelevant aside?

The fact that the police team's radio link didn't work underground is
because their particular system wasn't designed to do so. It wasn't
designed to do many things of which radio is capable but these
limitations have nothing to do with the laws of physics.

Mike.

--
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

20-07-2006, 12:08 PM

"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
news:tjcub2ltcavmo111394hjiourtr38pgsj8@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 12:25:22 +0100 'TD'
> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
<snip>
>>> I believe when a person shoots another in cold blood, the presumption
>>> should be that he is guilty: "I saw him shoot the guy My Lord".
>>
>>How on earth can you reconcile this belief with support for the
>>presumption
>>of innocence?!
>
> Very easily. I have explained elsewhere that in this situation the
> police gunman shot and killed a suspect and he is instinctively guilty
> of murder - in fact he would not deny that he killed the suspect -

What does 'instinctively guilty' mean?

> ...but being 'a fair kinda guy', I'm prepared to accept a defence from
> him of 'honest belief', providing it stands up to scrutiny in court.

Exactly what the situation is now.

> One of the important factors in my scrutiny is that he formed his
> honest belief from his personal assessment of the circumstances on the
> ground and did not simply adopt it based upon information passed to
> him by others. If I conclude that he made no assessment at all or
> made a wrong assessment, I would reject his claim and find him guilty.

Can you give an example of a 'wrong assessment'?

> ISTM that holding armed agents of the state personally accountable
> for their actions is the only way we can prevent them from killing
> innocent people with impunity. I'm sorry you don't see it that way.

I do see it that way, but with total support for the presumption of
innocence, and substantially less melodrama.

20-07-2006, 12:08 PM

"chippy" <chippy@wood.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4i7c3eF2h06jU1@individual.net...
> Cynic wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 16:04:36 GMT, AlanG <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > Double yellow lines and no parking signs will stop car bombers??
>>
>> > > In the last 23 years no lorry bombs have gone off there, neither
>> > > have any lorries even parked there ;-)
>>
>> > Law abiding car bombers round there.
>>
>> The point of the parking law is that it would make a parked lorry look
>> suspicious, and so it is likely to be investigated PDQ. Not that that
>> would make any difference to a suicide bomber, but it would to a
>> non-suicidal bomber who leaves a timebomb in the lorry and legs it.
>
> even London traffic wardens do not act that quick, and what would their
> first actions be? hang around the lorrie for a few minutes, issue a
> ticket, then return next day to tow it away?

May I suggest that any organisation taking advice from explosives and
demolitions experts are likely to be organisations that would keep watch for
such a lorry.

20-07-2006, 12:08 PM

"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
news:4gdub2pnkbuv3e797bc48rcf2qm3vihc9n@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 22:53:26 +0100 'Alex Heney'
> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>
>>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 10:09:28 +0100, hummingbird
>><RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 08:27:25 +0100 'Richard Miller'
>>>posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>>
>>>>In message <1bunb2tqe6f0ic026o6oc0l7i9qjfab3ec@4ax.com>, hummingbird
>>>><RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> writes
>>>>
>>>>>When you kill someone it is you (not the prosecution) who have to prove
>>>>>BRD that you held the *honest belief* that the other person was an
>>>>>imminent threat. The law simply provides *honest belief* as a defence
>>>>>but that doesn't mean the prosecution need to disprove it.
>>>>
>>>>No, that is not correct. If the defence raises self-defence and honest
>>>>belief as an issue, the prosecution is required to prove it beyond
>>>>reasonable doubt.
>>>
>>>So it appears the law does not require each person to be accountable
>>>for their actions based upon their own assessment of the circumstances
>>>and is not required to prove BRD that his reasons were justified.
>>
>>That is correct.
>>
>>>Do I
>>>get the feeling that the law is an ass?
>>>
>>
>>I suspect you do. I am sure there are people who agree with you :-)
>
> That's good. But it concerns me greatly that the flaw in the current
> legal position (stunningly obvious to me) is not also obvious to some
> others who are likely more legally qualified than myself.

Have you considered that it could be your lack of competence that has
contributed to a faulty conclusion?

<snip>

hummingbird

20-07-2006, 12:28 PM

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:26:21 +0100 'Alex Heney'
posted this onto uk.politics.misc:

>On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 08:09:48 +0100, hummingbird
><RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 00:33:46 +0100 'Alex Heney'
>>posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>
><snip>
>
>>
>>I suggest that one explanation is that it exists to accomodate
>>judgemental inadequacy within the police, since they are more likely
>>to use it than other killers not least because of the way in which
>>these operations are organised.
>>
>
>Nope.
>
>If that were true, then that is how it would have developed.
>
>But it hasn't. It was "ordinary" cases which developed the "genuine
>belief" part of the self-defence defence to a murder (or assault)
>charge.

Fair comment.

>I don't know of a case where a policeman has been tried and used that
>defence, although in this case (and probably others) it was used to
>decide there was no point in prosecuting at all.

Another way of saying that the CPS are pre-judging cases based upon
an expected use of this flawed law.

>>It is in fact a very convenient get-out-of-jail-free card.
>>
>>I might even speculate that the police knowingly organise these
>>operations to ensure sufficient confusion of accountability exists at
>>ground level to create the circumstances in which they can then claim
>>honest belief if a suspect is killed.
>>
>>This may sound a bit too conspiratorial but I have said for months now
>>that the very idea of the operational commander being located 5 miles
>>away in an office is utterly absurd and is bound to lead to confusions
>>- and that's exactly what we saw happen on that July day last year.
>>
>
>And as I said before, you can't ignore the laws of physics.

I don't see where he laws of physics comes into this debate.

>Last time I said it, people picked up on the fact that it *is*
>possible to get communications working underground, but that wasn't
>the main point.
>
>The commander will be coordinating what is happening. That can only
>feasibly be done from a fixed location,

That's nonsense. There's nothing practical preventing the commanding
officer from being on site in the middle of the action deciding what
actions to take minute by minute as it develops. That does not mean
the officer puts him/herself in any extra danger. Standing some yards
back from the front line with clear vision of proceedings would be
adequate.

>unless there is a sufficient
>gap in proceedings to move to another fixed location.

Nope.

--
"Blair's inner circle and its ferocious grab for power":
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1747772,00.html

"In the guise of fighting terrorism and maintaining public order,
Tony Blair's Government has quietly and systematically taken power
from Parliament and the British people. The author [Henry Porter]
charts a nine-year assault on civil liberties that reveals the
danger of trading freedom for security":
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1129827.ece

Scorpius

20-07-2006, 12:42 PM

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:37:31 +0100, "TD" <tdefries@hotmail.com> wrote:

>The presumption of innocence applies to everyone, and every man is entitled
>to a fair trial.

Too bad that's not the case in Britain.

>It's the job of the prosecution to prove the man is guilty. It's the duty
>of the court to try the man fairly.

LOL. You don't really believe that, do you?

No one could be that naive.

--

Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!

Cynic

20-07-2006, 12:43 PM

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:29:55 +0100, Kim Bolton <nospam@all.invalid>
wrote:

>>>All this will be on the radio channels recordings; but these won't
>>>make it into the public arena.
>>
>>IIUC it was stated that the radio comms on that day were not recorded.
>
>I find that hard to believe!
>
>For an event of this magnitude I would expect that logs and radio
>recordings were made, even if the aim was only to review them later
>and use them to train others.

But it would not have been known that it *was* "an event of this
magnitude" until the gunman started pulling the trigger.

>OTOH, no recordings....no pack drill.....

It is highly unlikely that it would have been claimed that recordings
were not made at all if in fact they were made. Far too many people
would have known the truth for it to have remained hidden.

If, OTOH the recordings had "gone missing" or were "found to be
faulty", I would suspect something more sinister.

If this was a *rare* occasion when recordings were not made, I'll
still suspect that it was deliberate - that someone suspected
beforehand that an event might take place where they did not want to
have *too* much on record.

But I have been led to understand that radio comms recordings are not
routinely made in all control rooms so it is probably not sinister at
all.

--
Cynic

Cynic

20-07-2006, 12:45 PM

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:33:37 +0100, Alex Heney <me8@privacy.net>
wrote:

>What you are really saying is that an honest belief is not enough.
>
>That it must be a "reasonable" belief as well.
>
>Many would agree with you.

It is not so much that that is how it is in law, but that that is the
main reference point that a jury would use in order to decide whether
the belief was or was not honest. The less reasonable the belief, the
less likely a jury is to decide that it was actually held.

>I'm not convinced. You say it lets an incompetent policeman get away
>with it - well yes, incompetence isn't murder.
>
>It is very arguable that there should be another definition of
>manslaughter where there was an honest belief that wasn't reasonable.
>Because it is arguable that in that situation, the death is down to
>negligence on the part of the killer in not assessing the situation
>well enough.

Would that not amount to culpable homicide?

--
Cynic

Cynic

20-07-2006, 12:48 PM

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:37:29 +0100, Kim Bolton <nospam@all.invalid>
wrote:

>>>>Car bombers are not likely to take note of waiting restrictions and
>>>>no bombing notices
>>>
>>>You have it in one.
>>
>>But nearly everyone else would. Which would make the parked truck
>>bomb stick out like a dog's bollocks. Which would certainly make it
>>*more likely* to be detected as a threat before it explodes than if
>>its presence was completely unremarkable.
>
>AlanG wrote the "Car bombers..." part.
>
>When I said "You have it one" I was pointing up precisely what you
>have said above, and what AlanG seems to have overlooked; in CT one
>criterion is called "the presence of the abnormal", in this case the
>unusual parked lorry; the "absence of the normal" being the other.

Understood. your meaning was not clear to me, I thought you were
agreeing with the PP. What you have now explained is 100% correct.

--
Cynic

hummingbird

20-07-2006, 12:49 PM

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:33:37 +0100 'Alex Heney'
posted this onto uk.politics.misc:

>On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 08:48:06 +0100, hummingbird
><RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 12:25:22 +0100 'TD'
>>posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>
><snip>
>
>>
>>Very easily. I have explained elsewhere that in this situation the
>>police gunman shot and killed a suspect and he is instinctively guilty
>>of murder - in fact he would not deny that he killed the suspect -
>>...but being 'a fair kinda guy', I'm prepared to accept a defence from
>>him of 'honest belief', providing it stands up to scrutiny in court.
>>
>>One of the important factors in my scrutiny is that he formed his
>>honest belief from his personal assessment of the circumstances on the
>>ground and did not simply adopt it based upon information passed to
>>him by others. If I conclude that he made no assessment at all or
>>made a wrong assessment, I would reject his claim and find him guilty.
>
>What you are really saying is that an honest belief is not enough.

Not at all. I'm saying that to use it for a defence it must be
demonstrated to a court, who would then consider its legitimacy in
the circumstances prevailing at the time and proceed accordingly.

>That it must be a "reasonable" belief as well.

A BRD belief by the court that the claim is legitimate and was formed
from the shooter's personal assessment of the circumstances and wasn't
based upon information passed to him by others, which as we saw can be
subject to terrible confusions and wrong information, resulting in the
violent death of an innocent person. *That* is the greatest injustice
in this case ...but nobody's accountable.

>Many would agree with you.

I'm sure that's true.

>I'm not convinced. You say it lets an incompetent policeman get away
>with it - well yes, incompetence isn't murder.

Incompetence is a sufficient defence in this situation?

Policemen who are unable to make on the spot judgements during their
training, simply should not be allowed to join the armed police unit.

>It is very arguable that there should be another definition of
>manslaughter where there was an honest belief that wasn't reasonable.

If an honest belief was not formed by the police gunman from his own
assessment but was formed from information given to him by others and
it turns out to have been false information, it's on his head because
IMV he should be responsible for his actions, no one else.

If he formed an opinion from his own assessment but it was clearly
wrong and unjustified and maybe false, the court may reject it and
proceed accordingly. This shouldn't happen often because his police
training will have included making judgement calls.

I'm sorry, there can't be any soft measures here - we are talking
about the lives of innocent people.

>Because it is arguable that in that situation, the death is down to
>negligence on the part of the killer in not assessing the situation
>well enough.
>
>But if an honest belief *was* held, no matter how it was arrived at,
>then murder is not IMO a valid charge, because the mens rea was not
>present.

--
"Blair's inner circle and its ferocious grab for power":
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1747772,00.html

"In the guise of fighting terrorism and maintaining public order,
Tony Blair's Government has quietly and systematically taken power
from Parliament and the British people. The author [Henry Porter]
charts a nine-year assault on civil liberties that reveals the
danger of trading freedom for security":
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1129827.ece

Cynic

20-07-2006, 12:52 PM

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:38:06 +0100, Alex Heney <me8@privacy.net>
wrote:

>As I have already said several times, I think the threshold for
>prosecution (i.e. the likelihood of success) should be significantly
>lower in the case of any public servant suspected of crimes "in
>office".

I would also be in agreement if the law stated that in every case
where a deliberate killing resulted from a *mistaken* belief that
self-defence was necessary, the case should go to trial regardless of
the probability of a conviction.

And ITYF that this is what actually happens with every such case
*except* where it is the state's functionaries who would be put on
trial.

--
Cynic

Kim Bolton

20-07-2006, 01:08 PM

Cynic wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:29:55 +0100, Kim Bolton <nospam@all.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>For an event of this magnitude I would expect that logs and radio
>>recordings were made, even if the aim was only to review them later
>>and use them to train others.
>
>But it would not have been known that it *was* "an event of this
>magnitude" until the gunman started pulling the trigger.
>

It was possibly the first time that the police were carrying out
surveillance on a terrorist/suicide-bomber suspected of being on an
active mission the day before; that this was no 'ricin plot' or
'Manchester United bombing plot' must have been fairly obvious to the
police.

And if Dick and her staff were using a purpose-built control room,
then it almost certainly had recording facilities built-in; BICBW.

Rob

20-07-2006, 02:01 PM

TD wrote:
||
||| ...but being 'a fair kinda guy', I'm prepared to accept a defence
||| from him of 'honest belief', providing it stands up to scrutiny in
||| court.
||
|| Exactly what the situation is now.

Not quite exactly though is it? Standing up to scrutiny in court, and the
CPS (who would never in a million years want a prosecution to go ahead)
claiming that they think it would stand up to scrutiny in court are two
entirely different things.

--
Rob

20-07-2006, 02:46 PM

"Rob" <rsvptorob-usenetREMOVE@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3IWdnZEEOcDp4yLZRVnyuQ@bt.com...
> TD wrote:
> ||
> ||| ...but being 'a fair kinda guy', I'm prepared to accept a defence
> ||| from him of 'honest belief', providing it stands up to scrutiny in
> ||| court.
> ||
> || Exactly what the situation is now.
>
> Not quite exactly though is it? Standing up to scrutiny in court, and the
> CPS (who would never in a million years want a prosecution to go ahead)
> claiming that they think it would stand up to scrutiny in court are two
> entirely different things.

As I've said elsewhere, I think some people are confusing the law with CPS
policy.

And I believe the majority of posters to this thread, and related threads,
are in agreement that CPS policy should be changed.

Alex Heney

20-07-2006, 03:54 PM

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 12:06:49 +0100, Mike <mike@kempston.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:26:21 +0100, Alex Heney <me8@privacy.net>
>wrote:
>
>>And as I said before, you can't ignore the laws of physics.
>>
>>Last time I said it, people picked up on the fact that it *is*
>>possible to get communications working underground, but that wasn't
>>the main point.
>
>So why claim once again that the laws of physics are remotely
>relevant? Why distract attention from your "main point" by an
>irrelevant aside?

I didn't make any irrelevant aside.

Unless you can think of a way of teleporting the commander, with all
her communications requirements, then the laws of physics say she is
going to be in a fixed location. And unless they *know* in advance
where the operation is going, that is extremely likely to end up
several miles away.

>The fact that the police team's radio link didn't work underground is
>because their particular system wasn't designed to do so. It wasn't
>designed to do many things of which radio is capable but these
>limitations have nothing to do with the laws of physics.

In case you hadn't noticed, I am now well aware of that. Although it
still holds that the police don't actually currently have equipment
capable of doing it.

But that is irrelevant.

It has NOTHING to do with the main point, so why are you introducing
it again?
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Manual Writer's Creed: garbage in, gospel out.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Mr X

20-07-2006, 03:55 PM

In article <fnqub21djd7km1pmtbofvdbo6dc8hv1rqm@4ax.com>, Cynic
<cynic_999@yahoo.co.uk> writes

>But I have been led to understand that radio comms recordings are not
>routinely made in all control rooms so it is probably not sinister at
>all.

I've been led to understand that they are, and the tapes are kept for a
minimum of 28 days and then reused.
--
Mr X

Alex Heney

20-07-2006, 04:00 PM

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 12:28:29 +0100, hummingbird
<RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:26:21 +0100 'Alex Heney'
>posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>
>>On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 08:09:48 +0100, hummingbird
>><RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 00:33:46 +0100 'Alex Heney'
>>>posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>
>>>I suggest that one explanation is that it exists to accomodate
>>>judgemental inadequacy within the police, since they are more likely
>>>to use it than other killers not least because of the way in which
>>>these operations are organised.
>>>
>>
>>Nope.
>>
>>If that were true, then that is how it would have developed.
>>
>>But it hasn't. It was "ordinary" cases which developed the "genuine
>>belief" part of the self-defence defence to a murder (or assault)
>>charge.
>
>Fair comment.
>
>>I don't know of a case where a policeman has been tried and used that
>>defence, although in this case (and probably others) it was used to
>>decide there was no point in prosecuting at all.
>
>Another way of saying that the CPS are pre-judging cases based upon
>an expected use of this flawed law.
>
>>>It is in fact a very convenient get-out-of-jail-free card.
>>>
>>>I might even speculate that the police knowingly organise these
>>>operations to ensure sufficient confusion of accountability exists at
>>>ground level to create the circumstances in which they can then claim
>>>honest belief if a suspect is killed.
>>>
>>>This may sound a bit too conspiratorial but I have said for months now
>>>that the very idea of the operational commander being located 5 miles
>>>away in an office is utterly absurd and is bound to lead to confusions
>>>- and that's exactly what we saw happen on that July day last year.
>>>
>>
>>And as I said before, you can't ignore the laws of physics.
>
>I don't see where he laws of physics comes into this debate.
>
>>Last time I said it, people picked up on the fact that it *is*
>>possible to get communications working underground, but that wasn't
>>the main point.
>>
>>The commander will be coordinating what is happening. That can only
>>feasibly be done from a fixed location,
>
>That's nonsense. There's nothing practical preventing the commanding
>officer from being on site in the middle of the action deciding what
>actions to take minute by minute as it develops. That does not mean
>the officer puts him/herself in any extra danger. Standing some yards
>back from the front line with clear vision of proceedings would be
>adequate.

Nothing to do with extra danger.

The fact is that the commander is coordinating several different
teams, in different locations (at least to start with - in this case
many of them ended up together).

To do that she need a communications network , and the sort of
facilities that you just don't have in the middle of the operational
team.

Where an operation is going to take place in a single known location,
it will often be practical to have the commander "on site". Where it
is likely to be a fast changing, dynamic situation, involving several
teams, it is neither reasonable nor practical for the commander to be
physically with one of those teams.

The laws of physics say she cannot be in multiple places at once, nor
can she instantly transport herself to where the action is. One or the
other would be necessary if she is not to be in a fixed location.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Friendly fire - ISN'T !
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

20-07-2006, 04:15 PM

"Scorpius" <spam@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:44bf6bdf.3576062@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:37:31 +0100, "TD" <tdefries@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>The presumption of innocence applies to everyone, and every man is
>>entitled
>>to a fair trial.
>
> Too bad that's not the case in Britain.
>
>
>>It's the job of the prosecution to prove the man is guilty. It's the duty
>>of the court to try the man fairly.
>
> LOL. You don't really believe that, do you?

Yes, I do believe it is the duty of the court to try the defendant fairly.

> No one could be that naive.

Do you think it is the duty of the court to try him unfairly?

How odd.

hummingbird

20-07-2006, 04:15 PM

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 12:08:02 +0100 'TD'
posted this onto uk.politics.misc:

>"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>news:tjcub2ltcavmo111394hjiourtr38pgsj8@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 12:25:22 +0100 'TD'
>> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
><snip>
>>>> I believe when a person shoots another in cold blood, the presumption
>>>> should be that he is guilty: "I saw him shoot the guy My Lord".
>>>
>>>How on earth can you reconcile this belief with support for the
>>>presumption
>>>of innocence?!
>>
>> Very easily. I have explained elsewhere that in this situation the
>> police gunman shot and killed a suspect and he is instinctively guilty
>> of murder - in fact he would not deny that he killed the suspect -
>
>What does 'instinctively guilty' mean?

Deary me. Prima facie if you prefer.
If I kill someone and openly admit it, then I'm guilty *subject*
to any defence I may put up which may be considered by a court.
I cannot deny killing but I may have mitigating circumstances.

>> ...but being 'a fair kinda guy', I'm prepared to accept a defence from
>> him of 'honest belief', providing it stands up to scrutiny in court.
>
>Exactly what the situation is now.

No it is not, by your own words.
You are being pedantic to discredit the concept of justice.

>> One of the important factors in my scrutiny is that he formed his
>> honest belief from his personal assessment of the circumstances on the
>> ground and did not simply adopt it based upon information passed to
>> him by others. If I conclude that he made no assessment at all or
>> made a wrong assessment, I would reject his claim and find him guilty.
>
>Can you give an example of a 'wrong assessment'?

Any threat assessment made by the police gunman which is not borne
out by the facts. If he claimed that he saw the suspect carrying a
heavy device under his non-existent padded jacket, the court might
decide that he had actually made no assessment at all before killing
him and might then decide to reject his honest belief defence. The
court might decide that he was lying or was paranoid or was seeing
what he wanted to see.

The defendent might then decide to claim poor vision or diminished
responsibility or insanity or whatever to wriggle out of the wrap.

>> ISTM that holding armed agents of the state personally accountable
>> for their actions is the only way we can prevent them from killing
>> innocent people with impunity. I'm sorry you don't see it that way.
>
>I do see it that way, but with total support for the presumption of
>innocence, and substantially less melodrama.

Sorry but I don't believe you. Your debate tells a different story.

--
"Blair's inner circle and its ferocious grab for power":
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1747772,00.html

"In the guise of fighting terrorism and maintaining public order,
Tony Blair's Government has quietly and systematically taken power
from Parliament and the British people. The author [Henry Porter]
charts a nine-year assault on civil liberties that reveals the
danger of trading freedom for security":
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1129827.ece

hummingbird

20-07-2006, 04:16 PM

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 14:46:20 +0100 'TD'
posted this onto uk.politics.misc:

>
>"Rob" <rsvptorob-usenetREMOVE@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:3IWdnZEEOcDp4yLZRVnyuQ@bt.com...
>> TD wrote:
>> ||
>> ||| ...but being 'a fair kinda guy', I'm prepared to accept a defence
>> ||| from him of 'honest belief', providing it stands up to scrutiny in
>> ||| court.
>> ||
>> || Exactly what the situation is now.
>>
>> Not quite exactly though is it? Standing up to scrutiny in court, and the
>> CPS (who would never in a million years want a prosecution to go ahead)
>> claiming that they think it would stand up to scrutiny in court are two
>> entirely different things.
>
>As I've said elsewhere, I think some people are confusing the law with CPS
>policy.
>
>And I believe the majority of posters to this thread, and related threads,
>are in agreement that CPS policy should be changed.

Except you from your previous line of debate it seems.

--
"Blair's inner circle and its ferocious grab for power":
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1747772,00.html

"In the guise of fighting terrorism and maintaining public order,
Tony Blair's Government has quietly and systematically taken power
from Parliament and the British people. The author [Henry Porter]
charts a nine-year assault on civil liberties that reveals the
danger of trading freedom for security":
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1129827.ece

AlanG

20-07-2006, 04:17 PM

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 10:43:40 +0100, Cynic <cynic_999@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 23:13:43 +0100, Kim Bolton <nospam@all.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>>Car bombers are not likely to take note of waiting restrictions and
>>>no bombing notices
>>
>>You have it in one.
>
>But nearly everyone else would.

Not anywhere I've been in the UK.

> Which would make the parked truck
>bomb stick out like a dog's bollocks. Which would certainly make it
>*more likely* to be detected as a threat before it explodes than if
>its presence was completely unremarkable.

A truck parked on double yellows would be accepted as a works truck
which has permision to park for the purpose of building works
etc.Shove a couple of road works warning signs up around it and bingo.

A car or van would be just seen as a chancer. Traffic warden sticks a
ticket on it and goes on her way. Boom!

AlanG

20-07-2006, 04:17 PM

hummingbird

20-07-2006, 04:21 PM

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 12:08:36 +0100 'TD'
posted this onto uk.politics.misc:

>
>"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>news:4gdub2pnkbuv3e797bc48rcf2qm3vihc9n@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 22:53:26 +0100 'Alex Heney'
>> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>
>>>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 10:09:28 +0100, hummingbird
>>><RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 08:27:25 +0100 'Richard Miller'
>>>>posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>>>
>>>>>In message <1bunb2tqe6f0ic026o6oc0l7i9qjfab3ec@4ax.com>, hummingbird
>>>>><RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> writes
>>>>>
>>>>>>When you kill someone it is you (not the prosecution) who have to prove
>>>>>>BRD that you held the *honest belief* that the other person was an
>>>>>>imminent threat. The law simply provides *honest belief* as a defence
>>>>>>but that doesn't mean the prosecution need to disprove it.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, that is not correct. If the defence raises self-defence and honest
>>>>>belief as an issue, the prosecution is required to prove it beyond
>>>>>reasonable doubt.
>>>>
>>>>So it appears the law does not require each person to be accountable
>>>>for their actions based upon their own assessment of the circumstances
>>>>and is not required to prove BRD that his reasons were justified.
>>>
>>>That is correct.
>>>
>>>>Do I
>>>>get the feeling that the law is an ass?
>>>>
>>>
>>>I suspect you do. I am sure there are people who agree with you :-)
>>
>> That's good. But it concerns me greatly that the flaw in the current
>> legal position (stunningly obvious to me) is not also obvious to some
>> others who are likely more legally qualified than myself.
>
>Have you considered that it could be your lack of competence that has
>contributed to a faulty conclusion?

No.
But I have considered that you are arguing with a forked tongue TD.
My position has been made crystal clear but you seemingly fail to
understand it and raise red herrings. Others understand quite well,
although I respect their right to disagree.

--
"Blair's inner circle and its ferocious grab for power":
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1747772,00.html

"In the guise of fighting terrorism and maintaining public order,
Tony Blair's Government has quietly and systematically taken power
from Parliament and the British people. The author [Henry Porter]
charts a nine-year assault on civil liberties that reveals the
danger of trading freedom for security":
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1129827.ece

Uno-Hoo!

20-07-2006, 04:40 PM

"Richard" <richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1153314001.514424.285980@b28g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> Alex Heney wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 23:09:39 +0100, Richard Miller
>> <richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >It absolutely does not imply that. Osman was and is always Osman even
>> >when he is not carrying a bomb.
>>
>> So you think the firearms officers were just told he was "Osman"?
>>
>> I thought they had been told he was a terrorist.
>>
>> And in the context they were involved in, i cannot imagine them
>> thinking that meant anything but an active terrorist.
>>
>> I also find it hard to believe that the CPS think anything else.
>
> Given that this was a surveillance operation, and that the man had been
> followed for a long time before the firearms officers arrived, and
> given the need for absolute precision when talking about killing
> someone deliberately, I do not see how the shooters could possibly have
> made any such assumption. Far from being logical, it strikes me as
> untenable that anyone involved in such a surveillance operation could
> make such a leap.

But once again I have to point out to you Richard that you have not seen
*any* of the evidence that was before the CPS. You do not have the faintest
idea what was said to the firearms officers when they deployed from their
base so you cannot possibly know what was in their minds and whether or not
it was sufficient to give them an honest belief. You are reaching
conclusions without a shred of evidence to support them!

Uno-Hoo!

20-07-2006, 04:49 PM

"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
news:1h7vb2p5rgdeajhl9ulql7rh1crtk1cmtr@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 14:46:20 +0100 'TD'
> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>
>>
>>"Rob" <rsvptorob-usenetREMOVE@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:3IWdnZEEOcDp4yLZRVnyuQ@bt.com...
>>> TD wrote:
>>> ||
>>> ||| ...but being 'a fair kinda guy', I'm prepared to accept a defence
>>> ||| from him of 'honest belief', providing it stands up to scrutiny in
>>> ||| court.
>>> ||
>>> || Exactly what the situation is now.
>>>
>>> Not quite exactly though is it? Standing up to scrutiny in court, and
>>> the
>>> CPS (who would never in a million years want a prosecution to go ahead)
>>> claiming that they think it would stand up to scrutiny in court are two
>>> entirely different things.
>>
>>As I've said elsewhere, I think some people are confusing the law with CPS
>>policy.
>>
>>And I believe the majority of posters to this thread, and related threads,
>>are in agreement that CPS policy should be changed.
>
> Except you from your previous line of debate it seems.

All I can do is repeat that I agree the policy should be changed.

Uno-Hoo!

20-07-2006, 04:49 PM

"Richard Miller" <richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:DgGAyIqmFqvEFwQP@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...
> In message <cd0rb259gbuiek0pe8qmrcnguqv9kpi1j2@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
> <me8@privacy.net> writes
>
>>So you think the firearms officers were just told he was "Osman"?
>
> All the available information would suggest that, yes.

No it doesn't! You do not have a shred of evidence to support that
suggestion.

They were staking
> out an address associated with Osman. The surveillance officers who
> wrongly made the identification identified him as Osman. The police
> throughout believed they were following someone who might be Osman - from
> recent leaks, it seems that many of them were actually doubtful that he
> was even their suspected terrorist, let alone on a mission. So yes, given
> that the whole operation turned on the fact that they thought they had
> identified and were following Osman, it seems likely to me that the
> firearms officers were told, "Yes, it's Osman".

Again - you cannot possibly know that! You do not even know if, at that
stage, the name Osman would actually mean anything to the firearms officers.
Did the firearms team know anything about the search for the failed bomber?
They were not involved in this 'sub operation' at all until the moment they
were called on to deploy. At that point none of us knows what information
was given to them. To assume that they were told 'It's Osman' and to assume
that they would even know at that stage who the hell 'Osman' was - is a
nonsense.
>
>>
>>I thought they had been told he was a terrorist.
>
> Osman is a terrorist. They were told that de Menezes was Osman.

Again - pure speculation - you have no knowledge of whether they were told
that at all.

It is
> possible that the firearms team are so out of the loop as to what is >
> going on that they had no idea at all who the guy was supposed to be, but
> that seems to imply a degree of incompetence and organisational meltdown
> that I was not proposing to imply in the police.

Why do you suppose that everyone, in every specialist department in the Met,
should have an intimate knowledge of every operation being conducted
elsewhere in the force area? Every day in every police force in the land
there will be specialist departments carrying out obs for suspects they want
to catch in the act. Do you suppose that Warrington Traffic Department will
be aware that Crewe Drugs unit are keeping obs on Joe Bloggs because they
think he is a major dealer?
>
>>
>>And in the context they were involved in, i cannot imagine them thinking
>>that meant anything but an active terrorist.
>
> Then that is, I'm afraid, a failure of imagination on your part. I can see
> nothing in anything that happened that day that could conceivably have led
> anyone to make an assessment that this guy was on a bombing mission even
> after he had wrongly been identified as Osman.

But, again, you cannot make such an assessment without knowing what
information was passed to them!!
>
>>
>>I also find it hard to believe that the CPS think anything else.
>
> So I gather. But then you don't have regular contact with their decisions.

I did!

Uno-Hoo!

Uno-Hoo!

20-07-2006, 04:52 PM

"Kim Bolton" <nospam@all.invalid> wrote in message
news:0lmub2lk1925cneumlv0el65ms723qts9l@4ax.com...
>
> Cynic wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 08:53:25 +0100, Kim Bolton <nospam@all.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>All this will be on the radio channels recordings; but these won't
>>>make it into the public arena.
>>
>>IIUC it was stated that the radio comms on that day were not recorded.
>
> I find that hard to believe!
>
> For an event of this magnitude I would expect that logs and radio
> recordings were made, even if the aim was only to review them later
> and use them to train others.
>
> OTOH, no recordings....no pack drill.....

Because of the large number of operations that were being conducted in the
Met area immediately after the bombing, the Gold Command in relation to this
surveillance operation was not based in a properly equipped Command Centre -
that is why the radio messages were not recorded. The equipment for
recording all radio traffic in a secure manner is large, bulky, and
expensive. Only regularly used command centres will have them.

Uno-Hoo!

Uno-Hoo!

20-07-2006, 04:53 PM

"Kim Bolton" <nospam@all.invalid> wrote in message
news:q8sub2pk2q4gvtrpoofr7llhmlg47bagjg@4ax.com...
>
> Cynic wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:29:55 +0100, Kim Bolton <nospam@all.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>For an event of this magnitude I would expect that logs and radio
>>>recordings were made, even if the aim was only to review them later
>>>and use them to train others.
>>
>>But it would not have been known that it *was* "an event of this
>>magnitude" until the gunman started pulling the trigger.
>>
>
> It was possibly the first time that the police were carrying out
> surveillance on a terrorist/suicide-bomber suspected of being on an
> active mission the day before; that this was no 'ricin plot' or
> 'Manchester United bombing plot' must have been fairly obvious to the
> police.
>
> And if Dick and her staff were using a purpose-built control room,
> then it almost certainly had recording facilities built-in; BICBW.

They weren't - and it didn't!

Uno-Hoo!

Uno-Hoo!

20-07-2006, 04:57 PM

"Richard Miller" <richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ox2a2IsnOqvEFw1H@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...
> In message <oj0rb25u83san5se2rlhpgfv3aigi4vgnr@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
> <me8@privacy.net> writes
>>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 22:29:30 +0100, Mike <mike@kempston.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 13:12:02 +0100, "Uno-Hoo!"
>>><Uno-Hoo@NOSPAMbigfootdotcom> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Sorry but he has to do nothing of the sort. He merely has to show that
>>>>he
>>>>has an honest belief. He does not even have to show that that honest
>>>>belief
>>>>was reasonable. He most certainly does not have to show that he arrived
>>>>at
>>>>the honest belief via first hand information because the law does not
>>>>require that.
>>>
>>>Excuse me being blunt, but readers may wish to place rather more
>>>reliance on the opinion of the respected lawyers who are posting to
>>>this thread than on the opinion of a retired traffic inspector from
>>>the sticks who thinks he knows the law better than the lawyers.
>>
>>But the "respected lawyers" (I think Richard is the only actual lawyer
>>posting on the thread, BICBW) are saying exactly the same thing.
>>
>>Richard's argument is not against that point, which he accepts, but
>>about whether they needed to be specifically told that the suspect had
>>a bomb in order to reach that belief.
>
> Or more precisely, that they had to hold an honest belief not only that he
> was Osman but also that he was on a bombing mission at that precise
> moment.
>
> And I am saying that the first hand/second hand issue is untested; my
> personal belief being that because of the extreme onus on any individual
> taking another's life, the Courts would require a personal assessment
> rather than accepting a belief that depended 100% on hearsay and with no
> attempt whatsoever to confirm that hearsay by a personal assessment of the
> facts.

I have posted it elsewhere, but this link gives interesting info about the
rationale behind Kratos and why it is considered necessary for firearms
officers to act the instant they believe the suicide bomber has 'sussed'
them.

http://www.mpa.gov.uk/committees/mpa/2005/051027/13.htm

Uno-Hoo!

Cynic

20-07-2006, 05:48 PM

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 15:17:56 GMT, AlanG <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:

>>If he were to stand trial, and is cross-examined by a barrister who is
>>*not* employed by the state, and the jury decide that the belief was
>>honestly held (or has not been disputed BRD), *then* I will be
>>satisfied.

>Given what has happened in the Harry Stanley case I doubt you will
>ever be satisfied

If that had happened in the Harry Stanley case, it would indeed have
satisfied me. But it did *not* happen.

--
Cynic

20-07-2006, 06:04 PM

"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
news:an6vb2514pr7gi231u86q04uok9hp7o78s@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 12:08:02 +0100 'TD'
> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>
>>"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>>news:tjcub2ltcavmo111394hjiourtr38pgsj8@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 12:25:22 +0100 'TD'
>>> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>><snip>
>>>>> I believe when a person shoots another in cold blood, the presumption
>>>>> should be that he is guilty: "I saw him shoot the guy My Lord".
>>>>
>>>>How on earth can you reconcile this belief with support for the
>>>>presumption
>>>>of innocence?!
>>>
>>> Very easily. I have explained elsewhere that in this situation the
>>> police gunman shot and killed a suspect and he is instinctively guilty
>>> of murder - in fact he would not deny that he killed the suspect -
>>
>>What does 'instinctively guilty' mean?
>
> Deary me. Prima facie if you prefer.
> If I kill someone and openly admit it, then I'm guilty *subject*
> to any defence I may put up which may be considered by a court.
> I cannot deny killing but I may have mitigating circumstances.

e.g. an 'honest belief'.

>>> ...but being 'a fair kinda guy', I'm prepared to accept a defence from
>>> him of 'honest belief', providing it stands up to scrutiny in court.
>>
>>Exactly what the situation is now.
>
> No it is not, by your own words.
> You are being pedantic to discredit the concept of justice.

The law says that a defence of 'honest belief' is valid.

It is _policy_ that is causing this perception of unaccountability, not the
law.

And yeah, I did notice you backed away from your view that 'police gunmen'
should be presumed guilty.

<snip>

Kim Bolton

20-07-2006, 07:04 PM

Uno-Hoo! wrote:

>
>"Kim Bolton" <nospam@all.invalid> wrote in message
>news:q8sub2pk2q4gvtrpoofr7llhmlg47bagjg@4ax.com...
>>
>> Cynic wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:29:55 +0100, Kim Bolton <nospam@all.invalid>
>>>wrote:
>>
>> And if Dick and her staff were using a purpose-built control room,
>> then it almost certainly had recording facilities built-in; BICBW.
>
>They weren't - and it didn't!
>
>Uno-Hoo!
>

The more you write about it, the more it seems the operation was a
cobbled-together shambles!

AlanG

20-07-2006, 07:06 PM

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:48:52 +0100, Cynic <cynic_999@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 15:17:56 GMT, AlanG <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>>If he were to stand trial, and is cross-examined by a barrister who is
>>>*not* employed by the state, and the jury decide that the belief was
>>>honestly held (or has not been disputed BRD), *then* I will be
>>>satisfied.
>
>>Given what has happened in the Harry Stanley case I doubt you will
>>ever be satisfied
>
>If that had happened in the Harry Stanley case, it would indeed have
>satisfied me. But it did *not* happen.

Whoosh?

Scorpius

20-07-2006, 09:20 PM

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 19:04:16 +0100, Kim Bolton <nospam@all.invalid>
wrote:

>The more you write about it, the more it seems the operation was a
>cobbled-together shambles!

However the fact that it headed in the direction it did shows there
was an agenda.

Operation Showtime comes to mind. That's the name the JBGTs gave the
Waco Massacre. It all started out as a publicity stunt, with TV
cameras already on scene before the raid. But they made a fatal
mistake - they choose to raid Texans. Texans do not roll over and play
dead for JBGTs. They stand their ground and fight back.

Live free or die.

--

Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!

Mike

20-07-2006, 09:39 PM

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 15:54:29 +0100, Alex Heney <me8@privacy.net>
wrote:

>Unless you can think of a way of teleporting the commander, with all
>her communications requirements, then the laws of physics say she is
>going to be in a fixed location. And unless they *know* in advance
>where the operation is going, that is extremely likely to end up
>several miles away.
>...
>It has NOTHING to do with the main point, so why are you introducing
>it again?

Because I thought that your reference to the laws of physics related
to the failure of the radio link, not the physical location of the
commander.

I'm not sure that having the commander nearer makes much difference
*if* the comms are effective and *if* all parties are properly trained
and experienced.

Mike.

--
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

Mike

20-07-2006, 09:49 PM

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 16:53:09 +0100, "Uno-Hoo!"
<Uno-Hoo@NOSPAMbigfootdotcom> wrote:

>"Kim Bolton" <nospam@all.invalid> wrote in message
>news:q8sub2pk2q4gvtrpoofr7llhmlg47bagjg@4ax.com...
>>
>> Cynic wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:29:55 +0100, Kim Bolton <nospam@all.invalid>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>For an event of this magnitude I would expect that logs and radio
>>>>recordings were made, even if the aim was only to review them later
>>>>and use them to train others.
>>>
>>>But it would not have been known that it *was* "an event of this
>>>magnitude" until the gunman started pulling the trigger.
>>
>> It was possibly the first time that the police were carrying out
>> surveillance on a terrorist/suicide-bomber suspected of being on an
>> active mission the day before; that this was no 'ricin plot' or
>> 'Manchester United bombing plot' must have been fairly obvious to the
>> police.
>>
>> And if Dick and her staff were using a purpose-built control room,
>> then it almost certainly had recording facilities built-in; BICBW.
>
>They weren't - and it didn't!

Which is even more evidence that the Met are hopelessly incompetent.

There are all sorts of "safety of life" radio communications that are
routinely recorded: air traffic control, coastguard, ambulance
service, and so on. The purpose is to provide a checkable record of
events for root cause analysis of failure and as protection against
unjustified accusation.

That the Met apparently have no such system beggars belief. Unless
it's deliberate so that they can plausibly muddy the waters, but
that's too far-fetched. Or is it? It's certainly convenient for them
on this occasion that (they claim) no accurate record exists.

Mike.

--
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

Mike

20-07-2006, 09:53 PM

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 16:52:15 +0100, "Uno-Hoo!"
<Uno-Hoo@NOSPAMbigfootdotcom> wrote:

>The equipment for
>recording all radio traffic in a secure manner is large, bulky, and
>expensive. Only regularly used command centres will have them.

But, at a pinch, a ten quid tape recorder would do the job. It
wouldn't have a separate timing track or redundant tapes but it would
be better than nothing.

Or it that too innovative for the bright lads of the Met?

Mike.

--
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

Mike

20-07-2006, 09:57 PM

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 16:57:38 +0100, "Uno-Hoo!"
<Uno-Hoo@NOSPAMbigfootdotcom> wrote:

>I have posted it elsewhere, but this link ...

Yes, you've posted it to uk.legal three times so far today (and I
haven't finished reading the group yet).

Will you *please* stop this needless repetition? There's enough to
wade through without it.

Mike.

--
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

Alex Heney

20-07-2006, 10:25 PM

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 21:39:23 +0100, Mike <mike@kempston.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 15:54:29 +0100, Alex Heney <me8@privacy.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Unless you can think of a way of teleporting the commander, with all
>>her communications requirements, then the laws of physics say she is
>>going to be in a fixed location. And unless they *know* in advance
>>where the operation is going, that is extremely likely to end up
>>several miles away.
>>...
>>It has NOTHING to do with the main point, so why are you introducing
>>it again?
>
>Because I thought that your reference to the laws of physics related
>to the failure of the radio link, not the physical location of the
>commander.
>

OK.

No, the question of the comms link, even in my original post was only
a minor consideration.

It was the location of the commander that was the main point I was
making about "the laws of physics".

>I'm not sure that having the commander nearer makes much difference
>*if* the comms are effective and *if* all parties are properly trained
>and experienced.
>

Agreed.

But Hummingbird seems to think it is important.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
A seminar on Time Travel will be held two weeks ago.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Alex Heney

20-07-2006, 10:29 PM

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 12:45:56 +0100, Cynic <cynic_999@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:33:37 +0100, Alex Heney <me8@privacy.net>
>wrote:
>
>>What you are really saying is that an honest belief is not enough.
>>
>>That it must be a "reasonable" belief as well.
>>
>>Many would agree with you.
>
>It is not so much that that is how it is in law, but that that is the
>main reference point that a jury would use in order to decide whether
>the belief was or was not honest. The less reasonable the belief, the
>less likely a jury is to decide that it was actually held.
>
>>I'm not convinced. You say it lets an incompetent policeman get away
>>with it - well yes, incompetence isn't murder.
>>
>>It is very arguable that there should be another definition of
>>manslaughter where there was an honest belief that wasn't reasonable.
>>Because it is arguable that in that situation, the death is down to
>>negligence on the part of the killer in not assessing the situation
>>well enough.
>
>Would that not amount to culpable homicide?

That is an American term for manslaughter, I believe.

So yes.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
To err is human. To really screw up it takes a computer!
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Alex Heney

20-07-2006, 10:32 PM

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 12:49:52 +0100, hummingbird
<RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:33:37 +0100 'Alex Heney'
>posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>
>>On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 08:48:06 +0100, hummingbird
>><RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 12:25:22 +0100 'TD'
>>>posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>
>>>Very easily. I have explained elsewhere that in this situation the
>>>police gunman shot and killed a suspect and he is instinctively guilty
>>>of murder - in fact he would not deny that he killed the suspect -
>>>...but being 'a fair kinda guy', I'm prepared to accept a defence from
>>>him of 'honest belief', providing it stands up to scrutiny in court.
>>>
>>>One of the important factors in my scrutiny is that he formed his
>>>honest belief from his personal assessment of the circumstances on the
>>>ground and did not simply adopt it based upon information passed to
>>>him by others. If I conclude that he made no assessment at all or
>>>made a wrong assessment, I would reject his claim and find him guilty.
>>
>>What you are really saying is that an honest belief is not enough.
>
>Not at all. I'm saying that to use it for a defence it must be
>demonstrated to a court, who would then consider its legitimacy in
>the circumstances prevailing at the time and proceed accordingly.
>
>>That it must be a "reasonable" belief as well.
>
>A BRD belief by the court that the claim is legitimate and was formed
>from the shooter's personal assessment of the circumstances and wasn't
>based upon information passed to him by others, which as we saw can be
>subject to terrible confusions and wrong information, resulting in the
>violent death of an innocent person. *That* is the greatest injustice
>in this case ...but nobody's accountable.
>
>>Many would agree with you.
>
>I'm sure that's true.
>
>>I'm not convinced. You say it lets an incompetent policeman get away
>>with it - well yes, incompetence isn't murder.
>
>Incompetence is a sufficient defence in this situation?
>
>Policemen who are unable to make on the spot judgements during their
>training, simply should not be allowed to join the armed police unit.
>
>>It is very arguable that there should be another definition of
>>manslaughter where there was an honest belief that wasn't reasonable.
>
>If an honest belief was not formed by the police gunman from his own
>assessment but was formed from information given to him by others and
>it turns out to have been false information, it's on his head because
>IMV he should be responsible for his actions, no one else.
>
>If he formed an opinion from his own assessment but it was clearly
>wrong and unjustified and maybe false, the court may reject it and
>proceed accordingly. This shouldn't happen often because his police
>training will have included making judgement calls.
>
>I'm sorry, there can't be any soft measures here - we are talking
>about the lives of innocent people.
>

OK.

Do away with the charge of manslaughter.

Every time somebody is killed due to the mistake of others, then that
is murder - because it will almost always be the life of an innocent
person.

I'm sorry, but murder requires the *intent*. And not just the intent
to kill, but the intent to *unlawfully* kill (or seriously injure).
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Oxymoron: Rap Music.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Alex Heney

20-07-2006, 10:36 PM

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 12:08:02 +0100, "TD" <tdefries@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"hummingbird" <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>news:tjcub2ltcavmo111394hjiourtr38pgsj8@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 12:25:22 +0100 'TD'
>> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
><snip>
>>>> I believe when a person shoots another in cold blood, the presumption
>>>> should be that he is guilty: "I saw him shoot the guy My Lord".
>>>
>>>How on earth can you reconcile this belief with support for the
>>>presumption
>>>of innocence?!
>>
>> Very easily. I have explained elsewhere that in this situation the
>> police gunman shot and killed a suspect and he is instinctively guilty
>> of murder - in fact he would not deny that he killed the suspect -
>
>What does 'instinctively guilty' mean?
>

I *think* what he means is that if somebody deliberately kills
another, ten he is guilty of murder, unless he can prove BRD that he
had a defence (i.e. a lawful reason to kill).

He clearly thinks that the presumption of innocence should not apply
in the most serious cases of all, and that rather than guilt having to
be proved BRD, it is innocence which must be proved.

<snip>
>
>> ISTM that holding armed agents of the state personally accountable
>> for their actions is the only way we can prevent them from killing
>> innocent people with impunity. I'm sorry you don't see it that way.
>
>I do see it that way, but with total support for the presumption of
>innocence, and substantially less melodrama.
>

Quite.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Some people act crazy, others aren't acting.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Alex Heney

20-07-2006, 10:39 PM

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 16:15:02 +0100, "TD" <tdefries@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Scorpius" <spam@spamcop.net> wrote in message
>news:44bf6bdf.3576062@news-server.houston.rr.com...
>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:37:31 +0100, "TD" <tdefries@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>The presumption of innocence applies to everyone, and every man is
>>>entitled
>>>to a fair trial.
>>
>> Too bad that's not the case in Britain.
>>
>>
>>>It's the job of the prosecution to prove the man is guilty. It's the duty
>>>of the court to try the man fairly.
>>
>> LOL. You don't really believe that, do you?
>
>Yes, I do believe it is the duty of the court to try the defendant fairly.
>
>> No one could be that naive.
>
>Do you think it is the duty of the court to try him unfairly?
>

I think he is just jealous of how much better our system is than the
Texan one :-)
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
If only women came with pulldown menus and online help.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Richard Miller

20-07-2006, 11:34 PM

In message <l5gtb2d9klamvd8orr3rmokvfmqh08cgot@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
<me8@privacy.net> writes
>On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 22:10:13 +0100, Richard Miller
><richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <s20rb2tlmi60k1r027cdfdbtri61nd24r5@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
>><me8@privacy.net> writes
>>>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 23:41:13 +0100, hummingbird
>>><RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>What we saw yesterday was the direct consequence of this not being
>>>>the legal position. It is nothing less than an attack on democratic
>>>>accountability and is the sort of sham which we expect to see in
>>>>dictatorships and lawless countries.
>>>
>>>Actually, it is the exact opposite, since this law has not been
>>>promulgated by parliament, but is the considered reasoning of a number
>>>of senior judges over the years.
>>
>>Not quite. The judges have never said that a belief founded without any
>>personal assessment is reasonable, as they have never, to my knowledge,
>>been called upon to rule on that point.
>>
>
>True, but there is no need for them to be called on to so rule.
>
>The rulings to date make it quite clear that if the belief is
>genuinely held, then it is sufficient defence. And that whether it was
>"reasonable" to hold it is irrelevant if it was genuinely held.
>
>I can't see how this can reasonably be re-interpreted to say "except
>where the belief was arrived at as a result of things he was told".

Here is another point where we part company. I expect if you look back
at all the previous precedents, they relate to the killer's own
observations and his conclusions from those observations. Therefore the
Court has never said that a belief based on no personal observation
whatsoever is reasonable. And because killing someone is such a massive
deal, I would be surprised if the Court did not say that personal
observation was an absolute requirement before a belief could be said to
be honestly held and sufficient to avoid a conviction.
--
Richard Miller

chippy

21-07-2006, 12:15 AM

Mike wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 16:57:38 +0100, "Uno-Hoo!"
> <Uno-Hoo@NOSPAMbigfootdotcom> wrote:
>
> > I have posted it elsewhere, but this link ...
>
> Yes, you've posted it to uk.legal three times so far today (and I
> haven't finished reading the group yet).
>
> Will you please stop this needless repetition? There's enough to
> wade through without it.

but the details cannot be made public, yeah right.

Like this bit
It is the DSO who will give the order to a firearms officer to shoot.

--
wigwambam

Mr X

21-07-2006, 07:15 AM

In article <226vb21umt02udjokd2f812qmopmbsds38@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
<me8@privacy.net> writes

>Unless you can think of a way of teleporting the commander, with all
>her communications requirements, then the laws of physics say she is
>going to be in a fixed location.

Wrong. She could well be mobile.
--
Mr X

Mr X

21-07-2006, 07:16 AM

In article <MOOdnW971q2eOSLZRVnysA@pipex.net>, Uno-Hoo! <Uno-
Hoo@NOSPAMbigfootdotcom.?> writes

>You are reaching
>conclusions without a shred of evidence to support them!

Hypocrite!

Precisely what you do all the time.
--
Mr X

Mr X

21-07-2006, 07:18 AM

In article <ebhvb2lebjp35itva6giocldsc8jc9tbvp@4ax.com>, Kim Bolton
<nospam@all.invalid> writes

>
>Uno-Hoo! wrote:
>
>>
>>"Kim Bolton" <nospam@all.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:q8sub2pk2q4gvtrpoofr7llhmlg47bagjg@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> Cynic wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:29:55 +0100, Kim Bolton <nospam@all.invalid>
>>>>wrote:
>>>
>>> And if Dick and her staff were using a purpose-built control room,
>>> then it almost certainly had recording facilities built-in; BICBW.
>>
>>They weren't - and it didn't!
>>
>>Uno-Hoo!
>>
>
>The more you write about it, the more it seems the operation was a
>cobbled-together shambles!

As usual, Kev is merely speculating.

If he were not speculating he would be quoting sources to back up his
arguments
--
Mr X

Mr X

21-07-2006, 07:20 AM

In article <-b6dnTNy5-ZjOCLZRVnyuw@pipex.net>, Uno-Hoo! <Uno-
Hoo@NOSPAMbigfootdotcom.?> writes

>No it doesn't! You do not have a shred of evidence to support that
>suggestion.

>Again - you cannot possibly know that!

>Again - pure speculation - you have no knowledge of whether they were told
>that at all.

>But, again, you cannot make such an assessment without knowing what
>information was passed to them!!

Once again, Hypocrite Kev criticises another poster for doing exactly
what Kev himself does.

Hypocrite!
--
Mr X

PeteM

21-07-2006, 08:58 AM

Mr X <me@privacy.net> posted
>In article <-b6dnTNy5-ZjOCLZRVnyuw@pipex.net>, Uno-Hoo! <Uno-
>Hoo@NOSPAMbigfootdotcom.?> writes
>
>>No it doesn't! You do not have a shred of evidence to support that
>>suggestion.
>
>>Again - you cannot possibly know that!
>
>>Again - pure speculation - you have no knowledge of whether they were told
>>that at all.
>
>>But, again, you cannot make such an assessment without knowing what
>>information was passed to them!!
>
>Once again, Hypocrite Kev criticises another poster for doing exactly
>what Kev himself does.

Yes. I too have been getting annoyed by this habit of Kev's.

The minute on of us points to some evidence that the police committed an
offence, he comes back with "You can't know that! That hasn't been
proved! There's no evidence in the public domain! How can you say that?"
But he's quite happy to make categorical statements of what the police
did and didn't do himself. It's not on, Kev.

--
PeteM

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

PeteM

21-07-2006, 08:58 AM

Graham Murray

21-07-2006, 09:21 AM

hummingbird <RHBIYDTNPPAX@spammotel.com> writes:

> However, I'm prepared to accept a plea of honest belief from the
> policeman providing it was formed by him from his personal assessment
> of the circumstances - not from information passed to him 2nd or 3rd
> hand - and that it stands up to scrutiny in a court.

Especially if, as in this case, the firearms officers lost
communication with the 'controlling' officer some time before
encountering the target and remained out of communication until they
left the scene after the shooting. In these circumstances, I think the
officers should at the very least check that the supposed target fits
the description (a suicide bomber with a bomb in this instance) before
applying lethal force.

Graham Murray

21-07-2006, 09:21 AM

Kim Bolton

21-07-2006, 09:45 AM

Uno-Hoo! wrote:

>But once again I have to point out to you Richard that you have not seen
>*any* of the evidence that was before the CPS. You do not have the faintest
>idea what was said to the firearms officers when they deployed from their
>base so you cannot possibly know what was in their minds and whether or not
>it was sufficient to give them an honest belief. You are reaching
>conclusions without a shred of evidence to support them!

I'm afraid that you haven't got the hang of 'how to do intelligence'.

From extensive reading about the subject, it is fairly clear that
dedicated professionals spend their working lives gathering
information about those intelligence targets it it their duty to
monitor and report on.

A multitude of targets exist: terrorist, military, political,
economic, trade, etc, etc, and the information on them comes from
everywhere: newspapers, radio, TV, libraries, meetings, conferences,
published works, telephone calls, faxes, e-mails, mail interception,
satellite photos, etc etc.

These professionals have the task of sorting all this out, weighing
the confusing with the obfuscatory, the jargon, allusions,
disinformation, errors, etc, etc.

At the end of the day, they are as clued up as they can be about their
subject areas. But, due to the covert nature of some of the activities
they monitor, they can never, ever, have a full and complete picture
of their target. Instead, they do their utmost to provide the best
assessment possible. But it will never be complete, or up to date.
But, as we have seen elsewhere, grave consequences sometimes follow
from those assessments.

Now, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that this sort of
skill and expertise exists in other areas of life, and can be applied
by people so minded to things such as the CPS statement of current
interest. It is quite possible to take the view that the statement is
full and complete, and represents the complete CPS view. But it is
also possible to assume as a starting-point the the CPS statement is
either less than complete, or avoids certain issues, or within its
words another message is being conveyed.

What to do about this? Simply apply the principles outlined above. An
intelligence officer or other interested party, deciding to take a
more considered view, might look at the history of the wording of
previous high-profile CPS statements. Is there a common theme here?
What issues does this raise, and what issues does it avoid? Does the
CPS have a history of going in to bat in the public interest, or is
that reason used to deflect unwanted futher attention? Who would gain
from this, and who would lose? Are there any other agendas, personal,
political, organisational, that might affect the outcome? I'm sure you
see the idea. The approach here of Richard, Cynic, and others is quite
valid.

But your own approach to this seems to be "wait for the facts to
emerge"; that is, the most unthinking, unaware approach that there
could possibly be, apart from discarding the CPS's words without
reading them. What is to stop you applying some thought to the sorts
of issues mentioned? You might, after all, find collateral information
to support your stance. You might also find that your rock-solid view
is built on less-firm foundations that you might have hoped.

Whatever you do, please apply some thought; others have done so, and
raised pertinent questions and put forward considered points of view,
as they did over the Forest Gate affair and others before it. There
is a complete answer out there; but the chances are it will stay
locked in a filing cabinet, never to see the light of day. But
repeatedly parroting the simplistic will not help anyone to understand
what might have gone on, or rebut the cogent assessments put forward.

Kim Bolton

21-07-2006, 09:45 AM

Kim Bolton

21-07-2006, 09:57 AM

Uno-Hoo! wrote:

>I have posted it elsewhere, but this link gives interesting info about the
>rationale behind Kratos and why it is considered necessary for firearms
>officers to act the instant they believe the suicide bomber has 'sussed'
>them.
>
>http://www.mpa.gov.uk/committees/mpa/2005/051027/13.htm

"E. Background papers

None"

Well, *that* was a well-researched document, wasn't it?

Kim Bolton

21-07-2006, 09:57 AM

Kim Bolton

21-07-2006, 10:03 AM

Graham Murray wrote:

>Especially if, as in this case, the firearms officers lost
>communication with the 'controlling' officer some time before
>encountering the target and remained out of communication until they
>left the scene after the shooting. In these circumstances, I think the
>officers should at the very least check that the supposed target fits
>the description (a suicide bomber with a bomb in this instance) before
>applying lethal force.

One can form a picture of the DSO screaming into the microphone "ABORT
KRATOS. ABORT KRATOS"....but the firearms team had gone underground
and were out of contact; leaving only what they could see for
themselves to act on. To my mind this makes the officers personal
assessment vital.

Does Kratos allow for the almost certain possibility of dropped comms,
with the fallback that it is up to officers to form their own beliefs
based on what they can see when out of contact?

Kim Bolton

21-07-2006, 10:03 AM

Uno-Hoo!

21-07-2006, 11:49 AM

"Kim Bolton" <nospam@all.invalid> wrote in message
news:8k31c2huteejq8sdosnvtlsrv5atquofn8@4ax.com...
>
> Uno-Hoo! wrote:
>
>>But once again I have to point out to you Richard that you have not seen
>>*any* of the evidence that was before the CPS. You do not have the
>>faintest
>>idea what was said to the firearms officers when they deployed from their
>>base so you cannot possibly know what was in their minds and whether or
>>not
>>it was sufficient to give them an honest belief. You are reaching
>>conclusions without a shred of evidence to support them!
>
> I'm afraid that you haven't got the hang of 'how to do intelligence'.
>
> From extensive reading about the subject, it is fairly clear that
> dedicated professionals spend their working lives gathering
> information about those intelligence targets it it their duty to
> monitor and report on.
>
> A multitude of targets exist: terrorist, military, political,
> economic, trade, etc, etc, and the information on them comes from
> everywhere: newspapers, radio, TV, libraries, meetings, conferences,
> published works, telephone calls, faxes, e-mails, mail interception,
> satellite photos, etc etc.
>
> These professionals have the task of sorting all this out, weighing
> the confusing with the obfuscatory, the jargon, allusions,
> disinformation, errors, etc, etc.
>
> At the end of the day, they are as clued up as they can be about their
> subject areas. But, due to the covert nature of some of the activities
> they monitor, they can never, ever, have a full and complete picture
> of their target. Instead, they do their utmost to provide the best
> assessment possible. But it will never be complete, or up to date.
> But, as we have seen elsewhere, grave consequences sometimes follow
> from those assessments.
>
> Now, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that this sort of
> skill and expertise exists in other areas of life, and can be applied
> by people so minded to things such as the CPS statement of current
> interest. It is quite possible to take the view that the statement is
> full and complete, and represents the complete CPS view. But it is
> also possible to assume as a starting-point the the CPS statement is
> either less than complete, or avoids certain issues, or within its
> words another message is being conveyed.
>
> What to do about this? Simply apply the principles outlined above. An
> intelligence officer or other interested party, deciding to take a
> more considered view, might look at the history of the wording of
> previous high-profile CPS statements. Is there a common theme here?
> What issues does this raise, and what issues does it avoid? Does the
> CPS have a history of going in to bat in the public interest, or is
> that reason used to deflect unwanted futher attention? Who would gain
> from this, and who would lose? Are there any other agendas, personal,
> political, organisational, that might affect the outcome? I'm sure you
> see the idea. The approach here of Richard, Cynic, and others is quite
> valid.
>
> But your own approach to this seems to be "wait for the facts to
> emerge"; that is, the most unthinking, unaware approach that there
> could possibly be, apart from discarding the CPS's words without
> reading them. What is to stop you applying some thought to the sorts
> of issues mentioned? You might, after all, find collateral information
> to support your stance. You might also find that your rock-solid view
> is built on less-firm foundations that you might have hoped.
>
> Whatever you do, please apply some thought; others have done so, and
> raised pertinent questions and put forward considered points of view,
> as they did over the Forest Gate affair and others before it. There
> is a complete answer out there; but the chances are it will stay
> locked in a filing cabinet, never to see the light of day. But
> repeatedly parroting the simplistic will not help anyone to understand
> what might have gone on, or rebut the cogent assessments put forward.

I have no problem with posters suggesting that such and such may have
happened, and if it did then such and such should have resulted. What I
object to is when people like Richard *assume* a certain level of knowledge
to be held by, say, the firearms officers (as though it was a fact) - and
then go on to argue that that knowledge renders them culpable. All I am
saying is that you can assume nothing until you know the facts. Certainly
you can speculate - but you should make clear that that is all you are
doing.

You cannot say: "The firearms officers were merely told that their target
was Osman and that was insufficient to give them the necessary honest belief
to act." for the obvious reason that you do not know *what* they were told.
We don't even know if the name Osman was mentioned to the firearms officers!

Uno-Hoo!

Uno-Hoo!

21-07-2006, 11:49 AM

Uno-Hoo!

21-07-2006, 11:51 AM

"Kim Bolton" <nospam@all.invalid> wrote in message
news:ebhvb2lebjp35itva6giocldsc8jc9tbvp@4ax.com...
>
> Uno-Hoo! wrote:
>
>>
>>"Kim Bolton" <nospam@all.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:q8sub2pk2q4gvtrpoofr7llhmlg47bagjg@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> Cynic wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:29:55 +0100, Kim Bolton <nospam@all.invalid>
>>>>wrote:
>>>
>>> And if Dick and her staff were using a purpose-built control room,
>>> then it almost certainly had recording facilities built-in; BICBW.
>>
>>They weren't - and it didn't!
>>
>>Uno-Hoo!
>>
>
> The more you write about it, the more it seems the operation was a
> cobbled-together shambles!

Because of the mass of operations being conducted in London on that day they
had simply run out of purpose built Control Rooms. What would you have them
do in those circumstances?

Uno-Hoo!

Uno-Hoo!

21-07-2006, 11:51 AM

Uno-Hoo!

21-07-2006, 11:52 AM

"Mike" <mike@kempston.net> wrote in message
news:ajqvb2184dc5v518cm1pdln6mvd38b3hni@news.kemps ton.net...
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 16:53:09 +0100, "Uno-Hoo!"
> <Uno-Hoo@NOSPAMbigfootdotcom> wrote:
>
>>"Kim Bolton" <nospam@all.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:q8sub2pk2q4gvtrpoofr7llhmlg47bagjg@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> Cynic wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:29:55 +0100, Kim Bolton <nospam@all.invalid>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>For an event of this magnitude I would expect that logs and radio
>>>>>recordings were made, even if the aim was only to review them later
>>>>>and use them to train others.
>>>>
>>>>But it would not have been known that it *was* "an event of this
>>>>magnitude" until the gunman started pulling the trigger.
>>>
>>> It was possibly the first time that the police were carrying out
>>> surveillance on a terrorist/suicide-bomber suspected of being on an
>>> active mission the day before; that this was no 'ricin plot' or
>>> 'Manchester United bombing plot' must have been fairly obvious to the
>>> police.
>>>
>>> And if Dick and her staff were using a purpose-built control room,
>>> then it almost certainly had recording facilities built-in; BICBW.
>>
>>They weren't - and it didn't!
>
> Which is even more evidence that the Met are hopelessly incompetent.
>
> There are all sorts of "safety of life" radio communications that are
> routinely recorded: air traffic control, coastguard, ambulance
> service, and so on. The purpose is to provide a checkable record of
> events for root cause analysis of failure and as protection against
> unjustified accusation.
>
> That the Met apparently have no such system beggars belief. Unless
> it's deliberate so that they can plausibly muddy the waters, but
> that's too far-fetched. Or is it? It's certainly convenient for them
> on this occasion that (they claim) no accurate record exists.

See my other response. The Met do have this tec