Jean Charles de Menezes - Coroner's summing up.
- Thread starter David Morton
- Start date
David Morton
Lifetime Supporter
Thank you Chris Edwards. Words fail me.
Ron Earp
Admin
No.
The "Right to Carry" movement has only appeared in the last ten years or so and has not been linked to any increase in crime levels. Individuals with Concealed Carry Permits ("Right to Carry") don't factor into crime statistics as they seem to be an abnormally fastidious law abiding group.
As far as Right to Carry being a factor with your Chicago incident, no, it didn't play there either. Chicago/IL has no right to carry law. You cannot carry, openly or concealed, a firearm in IL. You are breaking many laws in Chicago by having a pistol and carrying it anywhere on your person, not to mention more laws if you discharge it, and even more if you shoot someone with it.
For a brief on the US "Right to Carry" movement you can find it on the internet but in a nutshell it boiled down to this - many states had concealed carry laws on the books. But with a catch - after you'd followed all the rules, taken the proper classes and so on it came down to the local law enforcement head granting you the right. Historically, if you weren't "in" with this person you weren't getting a carry permit. It came down to his/her personal decision. There was no requirement he/she had to issue the permit even if you were the model citizen and met all the requirements specified in the law.
The "Right to Carry" movement cleaned up the language of the concealed carry laws and made the law "Shall Issue" - that is to say, if you met the requirements A, B, C, D, and so on, passed your classes, not a felon, not crazy, etc. they "Shall Issue" the permit. No arbitrary judgment by a law enforcement official deciding if you could or could not have the permit. But IL/Chicago still has no carry provision, that state is particularly "anti-gun".
Sorry for the diversion, now back to your regularly scheduled thread which, by the way, is very interesting.
David Morton
Lifetime Supporter
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
Jean Charles de Menezes inquest jury returns open verdict<o
></o>
A jury rejected the police account of the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes as the Brazilian's inquest was branded a "whitewash" by his family. <o></o>
After returning an open verdict, the 10 jurors rejected a string of claims made by officers about the events leading up to Mr de Menezes being killed. <o></o>
In a damning indictment, they dismissed claims by firearms officer C12 that he shouted "armed police" before opening fire. <o></o>
The jury also disputed that 27-year-old Mr de Menezes had walked towards officers before he was killed. <o></o>
More News<o></o>
· Police accept 'full responsibility' <o></o>
· <o></o>
<o></o>
The jurors concluded that six police failings caused or contributed to the innocent man's death. <o></o>
Firearms officers shot Mr de Menezes at Stockwell Tube station in south London on July 22, 2005, after mistaking him for failed suicide bomber Hussain Osman. <o></o>
As the jury returned its verdict after its sixth day of deliberations, the Menezes family accused coroner Sir Michael Wright of "presiding over a complete whitewash". <o></o>
In a stinging attack on the coroner, they said he "failed on every count" during proceedings. <o></o>
A family statement, released through the Justice4Jean campaign group, said: "After three months of evidence, 100 witnesses and millions of pounds, the coroner, Sir Michael Wright, has presided over a complete whitewash. <o></o>
"He has failed on every count of the purpose of an inquest investigation."
Police accept 'full responsibility'
Last Updated: Friday, 12 December 2008, 13:09 GMT
- Search: Menezes Met Police
The Metropolitan Police accepts "full responsibility" for the death of Jean Charles de Menezes, its acting head said.
Sir Paul Stephenson, the acting commissioner of the force, said officers made a "most terrible mistake" when they shot the innocent 27-year-old dead in Stockwell on July 22 2005.
He said the Brazilian electrician's death was a tragedy, and offered his condolences to the dead man's family.
Speaking at the Oval cricket ground in south London after the verdict on Friday, Mr Stephenson said: "The death of Jean Charles de Menezes was a tragedy.
"He was an innocent man and we must and do accept full responsibility for his death.
"For somebody to lose his life in such circumstances is something the Metropolitan Police Service deeply regrets.
"I wish once again to extend my profound condolences to the family of Jean Charles. They have suffered the most dreadful of losses."
He said the suicide bombings of July 7 and the failed suicide attacks on July 21 had created a unique situation in the capital, with terrorists on the loose.
"No-one set out that day to kill an innocent man," he said. "The coroner has ruled that, on the extensive evidence put to the court, this was not an unlawful killing."
He said the officers who shot the Brazilian "set out with the intent to protect and defend the public".
></o>A jury rejected the police account of the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes as the Brazilian's inquest was branded a "whitewash" by his family. <o
></o>After returning an open verdict, the 10 jurors rejected a string of claims made by officers about the events leading up to Mr de Menezes being killed. <o
></o>In a damning indictment, they dismissed claims by firearms officer C12 that he shouted "armed police" before opening fire. <o
></o>The jury also disputed that 27-year-old Mr de Menezes had walked towards officers before he was killed. <o
></o>More News<o
></o>· Police accept 'full responsibility' <o
></o>· <o
></o><o
></o>The jurors concluded that six police failings caused or contributed to the innocent man's death. <o
></o>Firearms officers shot Mr de Menezes at Stockwell Tube station in south London on July 22, 2005, after mistaking him for failed suicide bomber Hussain Osman. <o
></o>As the jury returned its verdict after its sixth day of deliberations, the Menezes family accused coroner Sir Michael Wright of "presiding over a complete whitewash". <o
></o>In a stinging attack on the coroner, they said he "failed on every count" during proceedings. <o
></o>A family statement, released through the Justice4Jean campaign group, said: "After three months of evidence, 100 witnesses and millions of pounds, the coroner, Sir Michael Wright, has presided over a complete whitewash. <o
></o>"He has failed on every count of the purpose of an inquest investigation."
Police accept 'full responsibility'
Last Updated: Friday, 12 December 2008, 13:09 GMT
- Search: Menezes Met Police
The Metropolitan Police accepts "full responsibility" for the death of Jean Charles de Menezes, its acting head said.
Sir Paul Stephenson, the acting commissioner of the force, said officers made a "most terrible mistake" when they shot the innocent 27-year-old dead in Stockwell on July 22 2005.
He said the Brazilian electrician's death was a tragedy, and offered his condolences to the dead man's family.
Speaking at the Oval cricket ground in south London after the verdict on Friday, Mr Stephenson said: "The death of Jean Charles de Menezes was a tragedy.
"He was an innocent man and we must and do accept full responsibility for his death.
"For somebody to lose his life in such circumstances is something the Metropolitan Police Service deeply regrets.
"I wish once again to extend my profound condolences to the family of Jean Charles. They have suffered the most dreadful of losses."
He said the suicide bombings of July 7 and the failed suicide attacks on July 21 had created a unique situation in the capital, with terrorists on the loose.
"No-one set out that day to kill an innocent man," he said. "The coroner has ruled that, on the extensive evidence put to the court, this was not an unlawful killing."
He said the officers who shot the Brazilian "set out with the intent to protect and defend the public".
Last edited:
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
It seems an open verdict was the best the jury could do given the coroner's directive to the jury in his summing up.
Can the family sue the Metro Police?
Can the family sue the Metro Police?
Mens rea - Defendants intent :they thought he was a suicide bomber at the time of the killing thus in their minds their action was legal. I don't think anyone disputes that they thought JCdeM was a suicide bomber, so in the terms of their licence the killing was lawful. The inquest was primarily to determine how they came by this erroneous state of mind.
David Morton
Lifetime Supporter
TPSY,
The system here is that the jury can only deliberate on what the Coroner directs them to. In his summing up he ruled that they could not consider Unlawful Killing and could only consider Lawful Killing or an Open verdict. They, the jury, can then only do one of three things - Lawful, Open, or Not Reach a decision. By returning an Open decision, (a finding only used by a coroner's jury of death without stating the cause), it also means very much the converse - that they could not agree it was a Lawful decison.
This is one of the most damning indictments of the police ever made and Deputy High Comissioner Paul Stephenson, of the Met Police, has gone on record this evening as saying they made the most terrible mistakes and things in the Met Police needed to be changed.They will be forced to act and comply with the recomendations for those changes. There will be a massive hugh and cry now about the Coroners directives, the Crisis scenario Chain of Command, or lack of it, and the appointment of the Gold Commander in the Met police.
This may also go to a Commons or even a Joint Select Comittee, where all those responsible will be brought before a panel of the Members of Parliament and thereby held responsible for their actions which I personally think would be a welcome decision.
Even the former Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, now working for an American company here in London has been on TV this evening.
Some of the news papers here in the UK for Saturday are carrying a headline - Did the Police Lie?
Form your own conclusions............:stunned::veryangry:
The system here is that the jury can only deliberate on what the Coroner directs them to. In his summing up he ruled that they could not consider Unlawful Killing and could only consider Lawful Killing or an Open verdict. They, the jury, can then only do one of three things - Lawful, Open, or Not Reach a decision. By returning an Open decision, (a finding only used by a coroner's jury of death without stating the cause), it also means very much the converse - that they could not agree it was a Lawful decison.
This is one of the most damning indictments of the police ever made and Deputy High Comissioner Paul Stephenson, of the Met Police, has gone on record this evening as saying they made the most terrible mistakes and things in the Met Police needed to be changed.They will be forced to act and comply with the recomendations for those changes. There will be a massive hugh and cry now about the Coroners directives, the Crisis scenario Chain of Command, or lack of it, and the appointment of the Gold Commander in the Met police.
This may also go to a Commons or even a Joint Select Comittee, where all those responsible will be brought before a panel of the Members of Parliament and thereby held responsible for their actions which I personally think would be a welcome decision.
Even the former Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, now working for an American company here in London has been on TV this evening.
Some of the news papers here in the UK for Saturday are carrying a headline - Did the Police Lie?
Form your own conclusions............:stunned::veryangry:
Last edited:
David Morton
Lifetime Supporter
Al,
They would first have to be charged with an offence and then remanded
or bailed until everyone is ready to face the court proceedings which would then be a trial by Jury. However I think selecting jurors would be a very difficult problem now, mainly because of the high profile of the Coroners court and the press reporting of the case.
They would first have to be charged with an offence and then remanded
or bailed until everyone is ready to face the court proceedings which would then be a trial by Jury. However I think selecting jurors would be a very difficult problem now, mainly because of the high profile of the Coroners court and the press reporting of the case.
David,that sounds like a recipe for a long,protracted court battle possibly ending in what would be a mistrial(if it was here in the US). What does British law allow for with a biased juror issue,a venue relocation?It would seem that everyone in the UK must have been exposed to all the sordid details on this one so that wouldn't work.Also,is it easier to try a civil suit there as opposed to a criminal one?Here the burden of proof is less/easier to establish fault/guilt in civil suits.By that I'm asking if it would still be possible to sue for recompense even if the police are not found criminaly guilty?
Last edited:
David Morton
Lifetime Supporter
Al,
Later today I will ask my eldest Daughter who works as a solicitor (attorney?) for an American Law Company in London and then get back to you.
Dave
Later today I will ask my eldest Daughter who works as a solicitor (attorney?) for an American Law Company in London and then get back to you.
Dave
David Morton
Lifetime Supporter
In the mean time this was in the Daily Telegraph this morning:
Gary Slapper, Professor of Law at the Open University, said the coroner's decision to withdraw the verdict was "highly contentious" and may well "backfire" if it is tested in the High Court.
Under the Coroners Rules 1984 and the Coroners Act 1988, which dictate the procedures at inquests, coroners have the discretion to remove certain verdicts if they do not believe they are supported by the evidence.
To return an unlawful killing verdict an inquest jury must be sure "beyond reasonable doubt" that murder or manslaughter has been committed, and Sir Michael clearly did not believe that to be the case.
But Prof Slapper said: "In this case the thrust of the evidence suggested that there was a reasonable possibility of the killing being unlawful. It's quite rare for a coroner to withdraw that verdict as an option in a case like this, and in this instance I believe it was an inappropriate decision.
"Inquest juries are not allowed to name people they think are guilty, and in a case like this they could have decided that the guilty party was not necessarily the person who pulled the trigger.
"When you consider the public interest aspect of this case, I believe the coroner should have given the jury that option, and there is a clear case, on the face of it, for a judicial review."
Adam Straw, a barrister specialising in inquest law, said: "The rule of thumb with an unlawful killing verdict is that an inquest jury would have to perform the same role as a jury in a criminal court trying someone for murder or manslaughter.
"The coroner in this case clearly decided that a jury properly directed could not come to that conclusion."
Gary Slapper, Professor of Law at the Open University, said the coroner's decision to withdraw the verdict was "highly contentious" and may well "backfire" if it is tested in the High Court.
Under the Coroners Rules 1984 and the Coroners Act 1988, which dictate the procedures at inquests, coroners have the discretion to remove certain verdicts if they do not believe they are supported by the evidence.
To return an unlawful killing verdict an inquest jury must be sure "beyond reasonable doubt" that murder or manslaughter has been committed, and Sir Michael clearly did not believe that to be the case.
But Prof Slapper said: "In this case the thrust of the evidence suggested that there was a reasonable possibility of the killing being unlawful. It's quite rare for a coroner to withdraw that verdict as an option in a case like this, and in this instance I believe it was an inappropriate decision.
"Inquest juries are not allowed to name people they think are guilty, and in a case like this they could have decided that the guilty party was not necessarily the person who pulled the trigger.
"When you consider the public interest aspect of this case, I believe the coroner should have given the jury that option, and there is a clear case, on the face of it, for a judicial review."
Adam Straw, a barrister specialising in inquest law, said: "The rule of thumb with an unlawful killing verdict is that an inquest jury would have to perform the same role as a jury in a criminal court trying someone for murder or manslaughter.
"The coroner in this case clearly decided that a jury properly directed could not come to that conclusion."
David Morton
Lifetime Supporter
Nick,
Very valid points and yes - it was a very difficult scenario in all respects and yes, it requires incredible bravery for anyone to tackle someone intent on 'suicide bombing' on a one to one basis.
A judicial review? I expect so. Then we will see what changes will be made.
Very valid points and yes - it was a very difficult scenario in all respects and yes, it requires incredible bravery for anyone to tackle someone intent on 'suicide bombing' on a one to one basis.
A judicial review? I expect so. Then we will see what changes will be made.
