EVE Search - Jury 'reject the option that Mr Menezes was killed lawfully'

All Channels

Out of Pod Experience

Jury 'reject the option that Mr Menezes was killed lawfully'

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
kor anon Amarr The Tuskers	Posted - 2008.12.13 13:57:00 - [91] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: kor anon a shame that an innocent man was shot, but these things happen. Id rather they had killed an innocent man through vigilance, then let a real murderer escape by hesitation. wow... care to elaborate or are you just hoping to catch the bandwagon that left two pages ago?
Shirley Serious Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2008.12.13 14:07:00 - [92] A big part of things like this are people's responses. A fair number of people shot by police marksmen that have turned out to be innocent, got shot because of how they respond. When the police shout "Armed Police! Stop!", then what happens is that guilty people put their hands up or otherwise surrender, while bystanders will generally gawk, and the crucial thing is that innocent people will look around to see what the noise was. So, when there's someone that is a suspect, and the police shout "Police! Stop!", then the innocent person will not stop, because they're thinking "what was that?", placing them at vastly increased risk of being shot, compared to a guilty person, who might be thinking "I'm caught", unless they're wound up enough to continue. So a suspect who doesn't stop, is either innocent, or a wacko. Not always that easy to determine. Of course, a society where people are conditioned to instantly hit the deck whenever they hear "Armed Police!" has it's own dangers. Yes. Yes, I am.
jason hill Caldari Clan Shadow Wolf Sylph Alliance	Posted - 2008.12.13 14:16:00 - [93] I think another contributing fact of the case regarding the judge ordering a not guilty verdict on the police in this case was that the police armed response officers around the country threatend to hand in thier arms if there was a guilty verdict imposed on the said armed police officers.And if that had happend who would we have to protect us ?... would we have the army on the streets policing us .. I suppose if anything it sends a message to those that want to come in this country and do us harm ... we may be a soft touch in terms of certain things ...but we do have the people in the right place to do the right job if you get out of line . IMO an the cold hard light of day the buck must stop essentially with our governments open door immigration policy of allowing just about anyone in... for any reason destroy everything you touch
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.	Posted - 2008.12.13 14:21:00 - [94] Originally by: jason hill I think another contributing fact of the case regarding the judge ordering a not guilty verdict on the police in this case was that the police armed response officers around the country threatend to hand in thier arms if there was a guilty verdict imposed on the said armed police officers.And if that had happend who would we have to protect us ?... would we have the army on the streets policing us .. So the police said, 'we have to be above the law'? and the judge instructed the jury to find the policemen who killed menzies not guilty of unlawful killing, on the grounds that otherwise they'd have to be punished. Jesus. Well I guess at least things are clear and out in the open now. One law for the police, and another for everyone else then. Frankly, I'm more scared of them than the "terrorists".
jason hill Caldari Clan Shadow Wolf Sylph Alliance	Posted - 2008.12.13 14:28:00 - [95] i never said in my post that the police have to be above the law. you taking my post completly out of context destroy everything you touch
Cmdr Sy Appetite 4 Destruction The Firm.	Posted - 2008.12.13 14:37:00 - [96] Yes, the option of reaching a verdict of "unlawful killing" was made unavailable to the jury for what were effectively operational reasons. You would think the case could have stood on its own merits, but given the false testimony necessitated by irrevocable initial announcements, the matter had to be guided to an ahem benign conclusion. Lying the first time is easy, but once you have to stick to the story...
Dred 'Morte New European Regiment R.U.R.	Posted - 2008.12.13 15:43:00 - [97] WATCH THIS CLIP PLEASE: LINKIFIED
Shirley Serious Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2008.12.13 15:48:00 - [98] Originally by: Malcanis Well I guess at least things are clear and out in the open now. One law for the police, and another for everyone else then. If shoot to kill by police officers is the accepted policy, then their commanders, the chief constable, the Home Office, the Home Secretary, and the Prime Minister all had to have been in favour of it and supporting such a policy. They can't possibly claim to have been unaware, as that's unacceptable. So when it inevitably goes wrong, then to say that only the police officers concerned could be found guilty, while everyone else gets away scot-free, is unacceptable. If the officers in this case were guilty, then all the others must also be guilty, because it was their policy. But none of them would ever face repercussions for their actions. So if the situation is that armed officers are expected to carry out this policy, but will be found guilty of murder when it inevitably goes wrong, while everyone who approved the policy faces no consequences, then that is unacceptable, and the armed officers are justified in resigning en masse. But having no consequences for anyone involved is similarly unacceptable. That's not a society anyone should have to be in. Shoot to kill policy means everyone has to be guilty, or no-one is. Yes. Yes, I am.
Shanzem Minmatar DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.12.13 15:52:00 - [99] Edited by: Shanzem on 13/12/2008 15:52:39 Originally by: Dred 'Morte WATCH THIS CLIP PLEASE: LINKIFIED That actually is explainable. those drills could be due to prior intelligence and so not to tip off spy's or hostile forces working within the UK, are not in on the fact that the intelligence agency knowns attacks are coming. so forming drills and putting the correct people in the correct place reduces damage and saves live. to be fair the people that died probably did a huge benefit, so the intelligence agency could see who the players within the plot were and take them out. -------------------------------------------
nahtoh Caldari StrikerCorp Dark Trinity Alliance	Posted - 2008.12.13 16:21:00 - [100] Originally by: Sokratesz Noooo ot the conspiracy claims. But I agree that terrorism is wayyyyy overrated. The % of people that suffer from it is hilariously small compared to, for example, car accident deaths. The damage caused by panicking governments and sensation media is insane >< 'They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.' - Benjamin Franklin Agreed ========= "I am not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why can`t we just take the safety labels off everything and let the problem fix its self
nahtoh Caldari StrikerCorp Dark Trinity Alliance	Posted - 2008.12.13 16:30:00 - [101] Originally by: Poreuomai Edited by: Poreuomai on 13/12/2008 11:27:25 Originally by: Xen Gin Yeah... Uh, I'm sure its also the policy to let "suspected" suicide bombers onto trains and then trying to stop them when they've had prior ample chances. In fact, they had let him onto a bus and then near a tube station and then into another tube station. And THEN the cops talk about a split second decision? LOL Originally by: Xen Gin I'm sure its policy to LIE about killing an innocent person. What's happened here, is incompetence, they funked it up, plain and simple, and they lied about it, and they tried to cover it up. Absolutely. And according to the police they could not shout a warning incase he blows himself up yet the officer claimed to have shouted a warning? The whole thing stinks to high heaven. The officers on teh ground wanted permission to stop him before he got to the station, but controllers would not give it. Thats why I think it was a command and control issue more than anything else. Also the claims made that were false also started much higher up the chain as well. ========= "I am not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why can`t we just take the safety labels off everything and let the problem fix its self
Davina Braben	Posted - 2008.12.13 18:02:00 - [102] Edited by: Davina Braben on 13/12/2008 18:04:48 If armed police officers are prosecuted based on the facts as known after the fact rather than on the information they have at the time ... well who is going to do that job then? Becomes a bit of an impossible position to be in, I'd imagine. That quote about liberty and safety is all well and good but we've already made that compromise (as have you merkuns).
Danton Marcellus Nebula Rasa Holdings	Posted - 2008.12.13 22:49:00 - [103] Edited by: Danton Marcellus on 13/12/2008 22:50:23 Originally by: Reven Cordelle Originally by: Danton Marcellus Why not end yourself now and spare yourself a possibly agonizing death? Grow up for christ's sake, its only his opinion... Quote: I am grown up, that is just my honest opinion, if you choose to live a life in fear why not cut it short and save yourself the agony? Should/would/could have, HAVE you chav! Also Known As
Dantes Revenge Caldari	Posted - 2008.12.13 23:14:00 - [104] Originally by: Reven Cordelle If our police force can't back up their armed officers decisions in the field, then they should revoke their ability to carry weapons in the first place. Good idea. Then give the guns back ONLY after they've had PROPER training. There are effective and non-lethal methods of taking someone down, anyone heard of tasers? Yes, guns should be used in exceptional cases but only as an absolute last resort. -- There's a simple difference between kinky and perverted. Kinky is using a feather to get her in the mood. Perverted is using the whole chicken. All this has happened before and will happen again
Qui Shon	Posted - 2008.12.13 23:31:00 - [105] Originally by: Davina Braben It needed it's day in court. We're not that kind of country. Yes, you are that kind of country. You kill residents without warning on mere suspicion. VERY loosely justified suspicion at that. Originally by: Shirley Serious If shoot to kill by police officers is the accepted policy, then their commanders, the chief constable, the Home Office, the Home Secretary, and the Prime Minister all had to have been in favour of it and supporting such a policy. They can't possibly claim to have been unaware, as that's unacceptable. So when it inevitably goes wrong, then to say that only the police officers concerned could be found guilty, while everyone else gets away scot-free, is unacceptable. If the officers in this case were guilty, then all the others must also be guilty, because it was their policy. But none of them would ever face repercussions for their actions. So if the situation is that armed officers are expected to carry out this policy, but will be found guilty of murder when it inevitably goes wrong, while everyone who approved the policy faces no consequences, then that is unacceptable, and the armed officers are justified in resigning en masse. But having no consequences for anyone involved is similarly unacceptable. That's not a society anyone should have to be in. Shoot to kill policy means everyone has to be guilty, or no-one is. It's patently obvious that they ARE all guilty. On a moral level, which is a level nobody gives a flying fish about, everyone who supports this type of policy in the first place is also guilty.
Qui Shon	Posted - 2008.12.13 23:44:00 - [106] Edited by: Qui Shon on 13/12/2008 23:45:43 Originally by: kor anon Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: kor anon a shame that an innocent man was shot, but these things happen. Id rather they had killed an innocent man through vigilance, then let a real murderer escape by hesitation. wow... care to elaborate or are you just hoping to catch the bandwagon that left two pages ago? You really need it explained to you? You're pretty much going against all western notions of justice and liberty. You're thinking a bit like, say, Stalin, who had his purges "just to be on the safe side". The presumption of innocence is at the very core of the rule of law. Remove that, and what you have is merely a rule by direct force. You have plenty of examples of that kind of society in history, but sadly also in some unruly places today.
nahtoh Caldari StrikerCorp Dark Trinity Alliance	Posted - 2008.12.13 23:49:00 - [107] Originally by: Dantes Revenge Originally by: Reven Cordelle If our police force can't back up their armed officers decisions in the field, then they should revoke their ability to carry weapons in the first place. Good idea. Then give the guns back ONLY after they've had PROPER training. There are effective and non-lethal methods of taking someone down, anyone heard of tasers? Yes, guns should be used in exceptional cases but only as an absolute last resort. Less lethal is the phrase you should be using...or perhaps less effetive overall as well (less acuarcy, range etc). ========= "I am not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why can`t we just take the safety labels off everything and let the problem fix its self
Dantes Revenge Caldari	Posted - 2008.12.14 00:28:00 - [108] Originally by: Qui Shon The presumption of innocence is at the very core of the rule of law. Remove that, and what you have is merely a rule by direct force. You have plenty of examples of that kind of society in history, but sadly also in some unruly places today. Not just the unruly places. The UK is slowly but surely going in that direction. Television license: As the homeowner, you are presumed to own a television and if your address flags up as not having a license, you are deluged with letters and calls from license inspectors. If you do not respond, you are taken to court without your knowledge or ability to speak in your defence and fined for not having a license. At no point do they presume you may not own a television, that is up to you to prove it. Speed Camera's: As the owner of the vehicle, you are presumed to be the driver and it is up to you to prove you were not. In addition, since we do not have a bill of rights, we are forced to name the driver on that occasion or face charges. Security License: A holder of a Front Line License (blue bar) is not allowed to do door work and the Doormans License (orange bar) is required or you can face a fine of ú1000 as well as losing your license. I have nearly been fined for talking to my ex-boss at a nightclub where she was working on the door. It took a month and several statements and letters to finally prove my innocence. The cost to me was over ú300 in solicitors fees etc, none of which I got back because it never went to court. I know of one person who actually got fined and his license revoked for speaking to one of his friends that he used to work with because it was presumed he was also working on the door that night with only a Front Line license. Going Equipped: You have to prove that you had a valid reason for carrying an item that could be used as a means to effect forced entry into a property. The court does not have to prove your guilt. There are so many laws in the UK that presume guilt. The government has been on the 'extra revenue' bandwagon for a long time. That is why our police force spend more time stopping car drivers than they do criminals. -- There's a simple difference between kinky and perverted. Kinky is using a feather to get her in the mood. Perverted is using the whole chicken. All this has happened before and will happen again
Madius	Posted - 2008.12.14 00:51:00 - [109] Originally by: Dantes Revenge stuff That's some twisted ****, glad I don't live in the U.K.
Dantes Revenge Caldari	Posted - 2008.12.14 01:14:00 - [110] Originally by: Madius Originally by: Dantes Revenge stuff That's some twisted ****, glad I don't live in the U.K. I wish I didn't either. AS for people spouting about shortage of police officers, maybe if they were't out checking tax disks on cars and stopping car drivers on spot checks to see if they can make a few bucks in fines, they would have officers out dealing with real criminals. There's no less police now than there was 10 years ago but now they don't do foot patrols any more. They've taken away the country policeman who knew everyone and everything that went on in favour of centralisation. They then re-assigned them to menial tasks that civilian staff should be doing, (what have we got community officers for, if not for the menial jobs?), and now they are complaining that they don't have enough officers. The only thing lacking is the brains at the top to manage their officers and place them in the right role. They are there to uphold the law and unfortunately, the only laws they are upholding right now are the ones that bring in revenue for the goverment. -- There's a simple difference between kinky and perverted. Kinky is using a feather to get her in the mood. Perverted is using the whole chicken. All this has happened before and will happen again
kor anon Amarr The Tuskers	Posted - 2008.12.14 12:06:00 - [111] Originally by: Qui Shon You really need it explained to you? You're pretty much going against all western notions of justice and liberty. You're thinking a bit like, say, Stalin, who had his purges "just to be on the safe side". The presumption of innocence is at the very core of the rule of law. Remove that, and what you have is merely a rule by direct force. You have plenty of examples of that kind of society in history, but sadly also in some unruly places today. O dear i dont seem to agree with 'western' notions, i must be a bad man. Based on liberty and justice? My hair arse it is. You brag about your liberty, a liberty that can be taken away whenever the goverment sees fit. ie. anti terror laws. You say you are advanced and are forward thinking, that you are just. At the same time you raid other countries in 'self defence' you demonise third world leaders, who are nessecary evils to keep their contries together. You fund these dictators for your own ends, and you say you are based on justice? You make me sick in your arrogance and lies, you spout out so much **** that you have started to believe it yourself.
Qui Shon	Posted - 2008.12.14 17:28:00 - [112] Edited by: Qui Shon on 14/12/2008 17:36:37 Originally by: kor anon Originally by: Qui Shon You really need it explained to you? You're pretty much going against all western notions of justice and liberty. You're thinking a bit like, say, Stalin, who had his purges "just to be on the safe side". The presumption of innocence is at the very core of the rule of law. Remove that, and what you have is merely a rule by direct force. You have plenty of examples of that kind of society in history, but sadly also in some unruly places today. O dear i dont seem to agree with 'western' notions, i must be a bad man. Based on liberty and justice? My hair arse it is. You brag about your liberty, a liberty that can be taken away whenever the goverment sees fit. ie. anti terror laws. You say you are advanced and are forward thinking, that you are just. At the same time you raid other countries in 'self defence' you demonise third world leaders, who are nessecary evils to keep their contries together. You fund these dictators for your own ends, and you say you are based on justice? You make me sick in your arrogance and lies, you spout out so much ** that you have started to believe it yourself. Maybe you have me confused with someone else? I'm from Finland, a little country wedged between Sweden and Russia. Last I checked, we weren't building our global empire on the skulls of third world babies or whatever you were implying. In fact, officially we don't even have an army, we have a defense force. Buuut, times are a changing, and we're probably going to depart from our time honored tradition of neutrality and strict limitation to blue helmet forces, and instead have troops in EU's rapid reaction force, or whatever they called it. If it weren't for one heroic member of government blowing the whistle and leaking confidential information, we might have had 500 troops in Iraq also back when it started In addition, there's plenty of hawks (I call 'em *****s) over here who want us to join Nato too .
Madius	Posted - 2008.12.14 17:36:00 - [113] Originally by: Qui Shon Maybe you have me confused with someone else. I'm from Finland, a little country wedged between Sweden and Russia. Haven't you heard? Finland has a long and bloody history of unwarranted aggression and propping up third-world dictators.
Arianhod	Posted - 2008.12.14 17:37:00 - [114] Originally by: Qui Shon Maybe you have me confused with someone else. I'm from Finland, a little country wedged between Sweden and Russia. Quoting for Awesome. Haruhiists - Overloading Out of Pod discussions since 2007. Haruhiists - Supporting Linkification since 2008
Qui Shon	Posted - 2008.12.14 17:38:00 - [115] Hehe, this thread moves fast. I barely got done fleshing out (editing) my message, and got two replies already.
Neth'Rae Gallente Decorum Inc HUZZAH FEDERATION	Posted - 2008.12.14 18:00:00 - [116] Originally by: kor anon a shame that an innocent man was shot, but these things happen. Id rather they had killed an innocent man through vigilance, then let a real murderer escape by hesitation. I guess you'd volunteer to be the innocent one then? I do Sigs, Banners and other Graphics for ISK. Click Here!
kor anon Amarr The Tuskers	Posted - 2008.12.14 19:07:00 - [117] Originally by: Neth'Rae Originally by: kor anon a shame that an innocent man was shot, but these things happen. Id rather they had killed an innocent man through vigilance, then let a real murderer escape by hesitation. I guess you'd volunteer to be the innocent one then? Didnt know volunterring was involved. Qui, you mentioned 'western' ideas so i assumed you was a yank or brit, my bad . Wow those finnish sure can fight, be afraid indeed
Neth'Rae Gallente Decorum Inc HUZZAH FEDERATION	Posted - 2008.12.14 21:39:00 - [118] Edited by: Neth''Rae on 14/12/2008 21:39:43 Originally by: kor anon Originally by: Neth'Rae Originally by: kor anon a shame that an innocent man was shot, but these things happen. Id rather they had killed an innocent man through vigilance, then let a real murderer escape by hesitation. I guess you'd volunteer to be the innocent one then? Didnt know volunterring was involved. What a hero, you're willing to sacrifice someone elses life so you'll be free from murderers? You realize if the police start doing things like that, they'll be the murderers so you won't be safe anyways, because you might end up being shot by some vigilante cop that thinks you're a murderer.. I do Sigs, Banners and other Graphics for ISK. Click Here!
Dr Slaughter Minmatar Rabies Inc.	Posted - 2008.12.14 22:30:00 - [119] Originally by: nahtoh Less lethal is the phrase you should be using...or perhaps less effetive overall as well (less acuarcy, range etc). Actually I would guess that trying to taser someone who's planning on blowing themselves up could very easily become more lethal. ~~~~ There is no parody in this thread. Honest.
nahtoh Caldari StrikerCorp Dark Trinity Alliance	Posted - 2008.12.14 23:25:00 - [120] Originally by: Dr Slaughter Originally by: nahtoh Less lethal is the phrase you should be using...or perhaps less effetive overall as well (less acuarcy, range etc). Actually I would guess that trying to taser someone who's planning on blowing themselves up could very easily become more lethal. Possably. Non lethal weapons proponats all ways crack me up... ========= "I am not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why can`t we just take the safety labels off everything and let the problem fix its self

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.