Welcome to the London Student University Forums | Student Discussion, London Events, Classifieds, University News.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with registering or your account login, please contact us.
"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.
> AIUI the gunman shot de Menezes because he had been ordered to,
> not because he thought he presented an imminent threat.
Please cite.
<snip>
TD
Today
Sponsored Links
__________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on London Student University Forums | Student Discussion, London Events, Classifieds, University News
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.
"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/pol...cle1129827.ece
"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.
>
> "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.
"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.'
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.
"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/pol...cle1129827.ece
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.
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.
"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/pol...cle1129827.ece
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
>
>"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
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
"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.
"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.
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" <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.'
>>> >
>>> > 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
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
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
"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.co m...
>>>>> 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.
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.co m...
>>>>> 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
Re: No charges for Menezes officers
Linear Mode
