Do Not Sell My Personal Information Jump to content


Menezes Inquest : Farce?


Chris Skelton
 Share

Recommended Posts

The coroner in the Carlos Menezes 'shoot first and shout warnings later in the day' case today told the jury that they should take no notice of the Menezes family, who wore T-Shirts with slogan- "Unlawful killing" yesterday.

"Its shocking that juries should be swayed in this way" (or similar) he said.

So....who was it ruled that the jury COULDN'T find a verdict of Unlawful killing and could only find an 'Open verdict' or a 'Lawful killing', as HE said there was no evidence? The Coroner, of course!

Isn't that why juries are there? To make that decision?

(I'd love it if the Jury came back and said that they DID find a case for Unlawful killing!! But I bet they are not strong enough)

Any views?

Link to comment
Share on other sites



I personally wish they'd drop this case, they were highly strung times, the world was in fear, and he ran from the police when they suspected he was trying to blow up a tube station............

It was an absolute tragedy that he was killed, but no one intentionally killed him, the police have to react within seconds in the heat of the moment and for them the risk of killing hundreds should he set off a bomb was too great.

If he'd simply stopped and put his hands up, he'd be alive today as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure the Coroner knows his job as to what is correct in law & what is not, a tragic case for sure,

but it does come back to the very very unpopular fact....if he wasn't in the UK (when he shouldn't have been)

he would very likely still be alive.

My thoughts entirely...well said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I personally wish they'd drop this case, they were highly strung times, the world was in fear, and he ran from the police when they suspected he was trying to blow up a tube station............

It was an absolute tragedy that he was killed, but no one intentionally killed him, the police have to react within seconds in the heat of the moment and for them the risk of killing hundreds should he set off a bomb was too great.

If he'd simply stopped and put his hands up, he'd be alive today as well.

And this ^^^^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this case is a real problem, they obviously killed an innocent man, but locking up the police officers is unpalatable to the general public I'm sure, so we're left with this alternative.

The root cause of the problem is years of bad US foreign policy making enemies round the world, and then us being desperate to stand shoulder to shoulder with them. That's why we were under attack and scared. Meanwhile places where we really should be going into like Zimbabwe are being left alone and are costing us millions in aid to clean up the mess. Oops, sorry for the rant :lookaround:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw the doco on bbc one about this a while ago. The police changed there statments lied about what thay said happend that day. what thay said was completely different to what the cctv showed and to what the witnesses saw who were sat in the same carrige as him. just a sad ending for everyone concerned

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The verdict of unlawful killing could only be brought in if there was enough evidence to prove the the officers who actually pulled the triggers acted outside the rules that they operate under. Did they believe that he was a threat to the public or them.

Why they thought that he was is where it all went wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that has struck me in this case is personal responsibility:

This chap was in the UK in excess of his Visa; viz. that he was still in the country much after his visa had expired and working illegally [in this country]. Irony being that had he returned to his native country as prescribed, then he wouldn't have been in the 'wrong place, at the wrong time'.

Furthermore, I don't see why the British Tax Payer, yet again, should be footing the bill for this family to'ing and fro'ing between Brazil and the UK. Yes a basic level of service should be provided, but not with all the 'bells and whistles' - it is unfortunate that he was mistakenly shot by Police - would the family of a British Citizen gunned down in Brazil have received even half the care and attention we have lavished on the 'victim' family?

All the talk of 'justice' from the family is just a little galling given the CJS in their own native Brazil and the handling they would have received if this incident had happened in Brazil. Begs the question, is an MBE in the making for them?

We're a soft touch in this Country and with the institutions failing to protect the rights and privileges of British Citizens in Britain it is no surprise we are in the muddle we find ourselves in...

As for the verdict - a Judge (Coroner in this case) is perfectly entitled to remind the jury of the legalities of any decision and thereby direct them to reach a particular verdict. Jurys are there to hear evidence and be counselled by the Court of what is/is not admissible and is/is not permissible. If you want a practical example of this, go sit in the Public Gallery of any Magistrates Court and you will quickly see that it is not the Bench that runs proceedings and is concerned with the legalities - but rather the Court Usher who will advise the Bench on what they have heard and should consider doing the proceedings.

Justice? I have yet to see 'justice' done in the majority of cases at Court...but I digress ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this case is a real problem, they obviously killed an innocent man, but locking up the police officers is unpalatable to the general public I'm sure, so we're left with this alternative.

The root cause of the problem is years of bad US foreign policy making enemies round the world, and then us being desperate to stand shoulder to shoulder with them. That's why we were under attack and scared. Meanwhile places where we really should be going into like Zimbabwe are being left alone and are costing us millions in aid to clean up the mess. Oops, sorry for the rant :lookaround:

Slightly :offtopic: but why do we always have to interfere in the internal politics of other nations? Can you imagine the outrage if, say Russia, had tried to interfere with British policies in N.I. during the troubled times a few years ago? We would not be prepared to let others interfere but successive governments seem to think that they have the right to do just that.

"Our" foreign policies are a major part of this unfortunate killing so should we hold the politicians responsible rather than the Police?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw the doco on bbc one about this a while ago. The police changed there statments lied about what thay said happend that day. what thay said was completely different to what the cctv showed and to what the witnesses saw who were sat in the same carrige as him. just a sad ending for everyone concerned

The only policeman who could identify the REAL suspect had gone for a pee?

So a chain of mistakes occurred because Menezes came out of the same flats! (Could have been me/you?) Thereafter a hurried chain of errors happened. Plus, as someone said, if the police THOUGHT there was a danger, they, by having their heads full of "Terrorists are attacking us" fear, would have shot anyone they were pointed at?

Act in haste; repent at leisure?

Some interesting tones of response here though!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

he was here when he shouldn't have been and ran from the police when bombs were going off.

I wonder what peoples viewpoint would have been if they hadn't shot him and he turned out to be the bomber and blew up killing loads of innocent people including a relative of yours?

It's a terrible mistake and if we lived in a perfect world wouldn't happen but we can't hold the police responsible for anything more than a mistake IMHO.

They are damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He didn't run from the police.

The police said that he ran, until the truth emerged and they were forced to correct their story.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/629/629/7073125.stm

IIRC, he was in the UK legally at the time he was shot, although he may have outstayed a tourist visa on a previous occasion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slightly :offtopic: but why do we always have to interfere in the internal politics of other nations? Can you imagine the outrage if, say Russia, had tried to interfere with British policies in N.I. during the troubled times a few years ago? We would not be prepared to let others interfere but successive governments seem to think that they have the right to do just that.

"Our" foreign policies are a major part of this unfortunate killing so should we hold the politicians responsible rather than the Police?

Yes that would have been outrageous. Although there was always stories of US support for the IRA which is disturbingly close to your theoretical example :)

I think you're right the politicians are more responsible than the police service. They just messed up under pressure, but the pressure wasn't their doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He didn't run from the police.

The police said that he ran, until the truth emerged and they were forced to correct their story.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/629/629/7073125.stm

IIRC, he was in the UK legally at the time he was shot, although he may have outstayed a tourist visa on a previous occasion.

Totally innaccurate. If you had read your link further, it provides a link to the following which totally refutes your comments that he was here legally.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5173032.stm

Part of the link:

"The Home Office said Mr Menezes had been granted entry to the UK for six months as a visitor on his arrival on 13 March 2002.

He then applied for leave to remain as a student, which was approved. He was granted leave to remain until 30 June 2003. The Home Office says his visa expired at that time and that he remained illegally in the UK until his death."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought I'd seen a report that he'd left the country and returned via Ireland, but there's been so much misinformation published I could easily be mistaken.

EDIT:

This must be the report I was thinking of.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime...raw-500231.html

It was probably corrected later.

Doesn't alter the fact that he wasn't running from the police, wasn't wearing a bulky jacket, didn't jump over the barrier, or commit any of the other suspicious acts which the police invented to justify their mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought I'd seen a report that he'd left the country and returned via Ireland, but there's been so much misinformation published I could easily be mistaken.

EDIT:

This must be the report I was thinking of.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime...raw-500231.html

It was probably corrected later.

Doesn't alter the fact that he wasn't running from the police, wasn't wearing a bulky jacket, didn't jump over the barrier, or commit any of the other suspicious acts which the police invented to justify their mistake.

Well said if Garethr

If the police had owned up and said yes we made a mistake was given wrong information and acted on that. I dont think it would have got this far and so much media attention. thay should lead by example not setting a very good one by telling blatent lies and making things up that never happend just so the blame doesnt rest on them I mean is that not a offence in itself

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i find it hard to believe the police would not have stated they were "Armed Police" before a shot was fired.

its simple UK law Rules of Engagement

Remember this wasn't a normal operation though, Mat. In the Met's secret "Operation Kratos" they had rules about specifically *not* shouting a warning if they thought the suspect was a terrorist who might be about to blow himself up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i find it hard to believe the police would not have stated they were "Armed Police" before a shot was fired.

its simple UK law Rules of Engagement

Remember this wasn't a normal operation though, Mat. In the Met's secret "Operation Kratos" they had rules about specifically *not* shouting a warning if they thought the suspect was a terrorist who might be about to blow himself up.

in that case then, the public and the inquest are being misled by being asked, was a challenge made, when in effect the rules of engagement in this case do not ask for a challenge

which is similar to Armed forces rules if the situation dictates

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in that case then, the public and the inquest are being misled by being asked, was a challenge made, when in effect the rules of engagement in this case do not ask for a challenge

which is similar to Armed forces rules if the situation dictates

The police might not have exactly stated the rules of engagement, I don't know. But it wouldn't be unreasonable to ask if there was a challenge. It seems that the police said there was a challenge, but the independent 3rd party witnesses say that there wasn't, and they didn't actually know how these guys running on the trains with guns were, and certainly didn't think they were police.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off the guy was not guilty of anything we know of apart from not having a valid visa, no reason to kill him. If it was the streets would be littered with corpses.

As I said way back in this thread, the Judge ruled out "Unlawful Killing" as a verdict that the jury could return. An inquest is not a trial, back to civil law and "balance of probabilities" again.

For unlawful killing to be brought in it would have be clear that the officers who pulled the triggers did it independently. The question is did they BELIEVE that the guy was a threat to them and others based on the information they had at the time. Also bear in mind that their radios would probably not work on the station at that time so no contact with the surface.

What is clear is he didn't jump any barriers, run down the escalators or try to "get away", that is on CCTV. What happened on the train is from eye witnesses who were there at the time. Think if YOU saw a man being shot in the head right in front of you would you really remember what actually happened just before? Most of the people on the "tube" shut off and don't even look at anyone never mind pay attention to what's happening about them, first they would know was WTF was that bang.

The whole thing was a "screw up" through bad intelligence nothing more and nothing less, could it happen again? Yes it could, and it has happened before.

Sad case, lessons to be learnt no doubt, farce not IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...




Forums


News


Membership