Menezes killing
Discussion
What I do not understand in all this
If the MET are found guilty and then fined possibly 0000's of pounds where does this money come from .
It will cause a budget hole so this will just get filled by asking for more money from the gvmt , who fined them in the first place .
Is this just a big money go round ? And the only people to benfit will be the briefs hired to take on the case or am I missing something ? .
It would be like a LTD company being able to offset fines against corp tax.
If the MET are found guilty and then fined possibly 0000's of pounds where does this money come from .
It will cause a budget hole so this will just get filled by asking for more money from the gvmt , who fined them in the first place .
Is this just a big money go round ? And the only people to benfit will be the briefs hired to take on the case or am I missing something ? .
It would be like a LTD company being able to offset fines against corp tax.
vonhosen said:
cuneus said:
The Met said they have done nothing wrong
[1]Is that what they said ?cuneus said:
Why don't they just plead guilty ?
[2]To what ?2/. We would like to think something akin to "unlawful killing"
Edited by Brother Mycroft on Tuesday 2nd October 14:26
anonymous said:
[redacted]
You'll need split screen to follow both threads. http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Brother Mycroft said:
vonhosen said:
cuneus said:
The Met said they have done nothing wrong
[1]Is that what they said ?cuneus said:
Why don't they just plead guilty ?
[2]To what ?cuneus said:
2/. We would like to think something akin to "unlawful killing"
They're not on trial for that.The officer's who shot him have already been exonerated. They acted entirely correctly based on the information before them at the time. They didn't have the benefit of knowing what we know now & whilst it is tragic that an innocent man was killed, that doesn't mean that those who killed him broke the law.
Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 2nd October 14:44
vonhosen said:
TTwiggy said:
What i find sad is, that if it was a soldier who had mistakenly killed an innocent MOP, they'd be in a military prison now, serving a long sentence for murder...
No they wouldn't. Not if they acted lawfully in doing so.I bow to your knowledge in police matters, but as someone who's served in the military, I've actually read the rules of engagement that operate for the armed forces when they are called upon to 'police' an occupied territory.
Granted, I left a while ago, so it's very possible that the rules have changed, and, additionally, I served in a force that rarely meets the 'enemy' eye-to-eye, but as an officer I was responsible for ensuring that my chaps didn't cross the line - and I can assure you that unless the defence was bloody watertight (much better than what we're talking about here) the response to the killing of an innocent civilian was draconian...
vonhosen said:
Brother Mycroft said:
vonhosen said:
cuneus said:
The Met said they have done nothing wrong
[1]Is that what they said ?cuneus said:
Why don't they just plead guilty ?
[2]To what ?cuneus said:
2/. We would like to think something akin to "unlawful killing"
They're not on trial for that.The officer's who shot him have already been exonerated. They acted entirely correctly based on the information before them at the time. They didn't have the benefit of knowing what we know now & whilst it is tragic that an innocent man was killed, that doesn't mean that those who killed him broke the law.
Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 2nd October 14:44
TTwiggy said:
vonhosen said:
TTwiggy said:
What i find sad is, that if it was a soldier who had mistakenly killed an innocent MOP, they'd be in a military prison now, serving a long sentence for murder...
No they wouldn't. Not if they acted lawfully in doing so.I bow to your knowledge in police matters, but as someone who's served in the military, I've actually read the rules of engagement that operate for the armed forces when they are called upon to 'police' an occupied territory.
Granted, I left a while ago, so it's very possible that the rules have changed, and, additionally, I served in a force that rarely meets the 'enemy' eye-to-eye, but as an officer I was responsible for ensuring that my chaps didn't cross the line - and I can assure you that unless the defence was bloody watertight (much better than what we're talking about here) the response to the killing of an innocent civilian was draconian...
Einion Yrth said:
vonhosen said:
They acted entirely correctly based on the information before them at the time.
You talk bollox at the best of times, but that's offensively crap.vonhosen said:
TTwiggy said:
vonhosen said:
TTwiggy said:
What i find sad is, that if it was a soldier who had mistakenly killed an innocent MOP, they'd be in a military prison now, serving a long sentence for murder...
No they wouldn't. Not if they acted lawfully in doing so.I bow to your knowledge in police matters, but as someone who's served in the military, I've actually read the rules of engagement that operate for the armed forces when they are called upon to 'police' an occupied territory.
Granted, I left a while ago, so it's very possible that the rules have changed, and, additionally, I served in a force that rarely meets the 'enemy' eye-to-eye, but as an officer I was responsible for ensuring that my chaps didn't cross the line - and I can assure you that unless the defence was bloody watertight (much better than what we're talking about here) the response to the killing of an innocent civilian was draconian...
BUT, I commanded bording parties that uncovered concrete evidence of gun-running, drug trafficking and illegal movement of persons, by civilians, and if any of the sailors or marines under my command had decided to get trigger happy, i'd be bloody praying that the other guys shot first...
vonhosen said:
Einion Yrth said:
vonhosen said:
They acted entirely correctly based on the information before them at the time.
You talk bollox at the best of times, but that's offensively crap.
Einion Yrth said:
vonhosen said:
Einion Yrth said:
vonhosen said:
They acted entirely correctly based on the information before them at the time.
You talk bollox at the best of times, but that's offensively crap.TTwiggy said:
vonhosen said:
TTwiggy said:
vonhosen said:
TTwiggy said:
What i find sad is, that if it was a soldier who had mistakenly killed an innocent MOP, they'd be in a military prison now, serving a long sentence for murder...
No they wouldn't. Not if they acted lawfully in doing so.I bow to your knowledge in police matters, but as someone who's served in the military, I've actually read the rules of engagement that operate for the armed forces when they are called upon to 'police' an occupied territory.
Granted, I left a while ago, so it's very possible that the rules have changed, and, additionally, I served in a force that rarely meets the 'enemy' eye-to-eye, but as an officer I was responsible for ensuring that my chaps didn't cross the line - and I can assure you that unless the defence was bloody watertight (much better than what we're talking about here) the response to the killing of an innocent civilian was draconian...
BUT, I commanded bording parties that uncovered concrete evidence of gun-running, drug trafficking and illegal movement of persons, by civilians, and if any of the sailors or marines under my command had decided to get trigger happy, i'd be bloody praying that the other guys shot first...
vonhosen said:
TTwiggy said:
vonhosen said:
TTwiggy said:
vonhosen said:
TTwiggy said:
What i find sad is, that if it was a soldier who had mistakenly killed an innocent MOP, they'd be in a military prison now, serving a long sentence for murder...
No they wouldn't. Not if they acted lawfully in doing so.I bow to your knowledge in police matters, but as someone who's served in the military, I've actually read the rules of engagement that operate for the armed forces when they are called upon to 'police' an occupied territory.
Granted, I left a while ago, so it's very possible that the rules have changed, and, additionally, I served in a force that rarely meets the 'enemy' eye-to-eye, but as an officer I was responsible for ensuring that my chaps didn't cross the line - and I can assure you that unless the defence was bloody watertight (much better than what we're talking about here) the response to the killing of an innocent civilian was draconian...
BUT, I commanded bording parties that uncovered concrete evidence of gun-running, drug trafficking and illegal movement of persons, by civilians, and if any of the sailors or marines under my command had decided to get trigger happy, i'd be bloody praying that the other guys shot first...
i was just saying that we actually KNEW these guys were up to no good, we also KNEW (in some cases) that they were armed, but we manged not to shoot any of them
granted, when a gun ship pulls alongside a fishing boat, and 6 hairy ar**d marines clamber aboard, it tends to take the fight out of people!
i guess what i'm saying is, I understand that these situations are critical, but if you're discharging weapons anywhere near civilians, you'd better be bloody sure that there's no other way of dealing with the situation.
We (the public) may never know the full facts in this case (which may actually be a disservice to the coppers involved) but reports of noisy, overcrowded command rooms, an armed repsonse car that had to stop for petrol, a very close call with respect to 'blue on blue' and ultimately an innocent guy lying dead - well it doesn't look great does it?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff