UK Police Bad Shoot on Tubes... Verdict

B

Bog

New member
I'm not sure who remembers the case of Jean Charles de Menezes who last year was co-operating with the plainclothes policemen who were pinning him to the floor of a tube-train when they unloaded 11 rounds into his head (missing the target 4 times at point blank range, sinking one into his shoulder and the rest into the floor).

Given that this man was not resisting, not even arguing, and as a result had a ragged stump for a neck... this makes it plain that whatever exit-strategy for the Uck is not fast enough:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-5958015,00.html

Synopsis: "We're not accountable". The worst that's being levied for this is a fine for not "protecting Mr. Menezes' Health and Safety".

7 rounds to the face of an innocent man is apparently a fineable offence for a UK LEO. Not "Manslaughter", not "Murder", not even worthy of suspening the cops in question.

(For those not familiar with the case, those seven rounds as panicky as they were performed adequately to reduce Mr. Menezes' head to a ragged hole in the floor of the subway car).

A light fine under Health and Safety regulations for killing an innocent man just seems wrong to me.

Someone tell me that a shooting which is as utterly unjustified as this gets the officer who shot - or the officer commanding the op - nailed to the wall.

Please tell me that.
 
The police in the UK will learn to act according to the wishes of the people and government.

A suspected terrorist bomber, although actually innocent, was regretably killed by the police in an effort to protect the public. Many have expressed the belief that a more restrained approach by the police would have avoided an unnecessary death. If the officers are punished, other officers will learn to avoid taking such decisive action in the future.

If the next suspect is a real terrorist bomber ...
 
You don't have to cross "The Pond" to find this type of decision. Arguably the most notable would be Lon Horiuchi and the shooting of Vicki Weaver.
 
If the next suspect is a real terrorist bomber ...
Click to expand...

Well and good, GC, but *actual terrorist incursions* are pretty darn rare.

The problem is, if I break the nose of a man burgling my house - here in the Uck - I am guilty of assault. A charge carrying a prison term.

If Mr. Blue Suit blows my head off, he's guilty of a Health and Safety Violation, carrying perhaps a $4000 fine. Gosh.

Because, you see, he's Mr. Blue Suit. I'm just a pleb. I don't have any rights. Not even - to be honest - free speech.

This is an untenable situation. Do you see?
 
If the officers are punished, other officers will learn to avoid taking such decisive action in the future.

If the next suspect is a real terrorist bomber ...
Click to expand...
From your lips to Joe Stalin's ear.

The Individual is but a part of a Whole; His loss is most regrettable. But knowing that the Whole can rest safely at night....this is the meaning of Freedom..

Sounds good to me. I just wonder how those brave few, some 240 years ago, would respond to the reasoning. No matter.....it's very different today; today, we need not worry about .gov excess. Today, we're free. Just ask the family of Jean Charles de Menezes ;)
Rich
 
Well after about 30 minutes of searching, I'm going to have to retract my statement regarding Horiuchi, as I am not able to provide an independent "Source, please" to support what I've been told by people ostensibly in the know.
Rich
 
Well, Bog,

A more-recent example, under admittedly different circumstances, is detailed here:

FBI Weighs Full Probe in Death of Optometrist
Family Had Sought Federal Investigation After Fairfax Declined to Prosecute Officer

By Tom Jackman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, April 15, 2006; B02

The FBI has begun a preliminary review of the Fairfax County police shooting of an unarmed optometrist in January, and agents have collected the Fairfax police file and spoken with department officials, authorities said yesterday.

The moves by the FBI in the death of Salvatore J. Culosi on Jan. 24 do not mean the agency has decided to launch a full investigation into the case. That decision will be made after agents consult with prosecutors in the Justice Department, FBI spokeswoman Debbie Weierman said.

The acting assistant director of the FBI's Washington field office, Joseph Persichini Jr., called the Culosi family yesterday to notify them that the preliminary review was underway, Weierman and the Culosis' attorney said. Agents last week picked up a copy of the police investigation into the shooting and met with Fairfax Police Chief David M. Rohrer and officials from the internal affairs bureau, police spokeswoman Mary Ann Jennings said.

Culosi's parents asked for a federal investigation after the top Fairfax prosecutor decided that no crime was committed when Culosi, 37, was shot outside his Fair Oaks townhouse by a police SWAT officer. That officer, Deval V. Bullock, told investigators he did not mean to shoot Culosi and did not know why he had his finger on the trigger of his .45-caliber handgun

Police had been investigating Culosi for alleged sports betting. Although Bullock, a 17-year police veteran, was cleared of any criminal charges, he remains the subject of an internal police investigation and is assigned to administrative duties.

On Thursday, Culosi's family criticized the Fairfax police for taking five hours to notify them of the shooting, saying the delay had deprived Culosi, a Roman Catholic, of receiving last rites. Jennings yesterday explained the delay.

Culosi was shot about 9:35 p.m. He was treated by a paramedic at the scene, then taken to Inova Fairfax Hospital, where he was pronounced dead at 10:07 p.m.

Police visited Culosi's mother, Anita, at her home in Annandale at 2:45 a.m., Jennings said. She said police wanted to make the notification themselves, rather than have a hospital social worker tell the family that there had been an accident and let them race to the hospital.

Police also wanted to be certain what had happened before visiting the Culosis, rather than show up with no information, Jennings said.

"In the family's mind, five hours is a delay," Jennings said. "In our view, it's the time it takes to do an investigation. Five hours is not unreasonable in a case as complicated as this."

Bernard J. DiMuro, the Culosis' attorney, said he understood police wanting to notify the family themselves. "But it strikes me very odd that they would need five hours to determine what happened," DiMuro said. "It was quite clear what happened. He was shot by a police officer."

© 2006 The Washington Post Company
Click to expand...


Copper guns down a non-resisting, compliant suspect, and is given a clean bill by his own. Oh, and he wasn't suspected of plotting to blow up trains. He was suspected of making book on some gridiron football games.

Maybe the Feebs will do something about this abortion, maybe not.
 
Mr. James-
This one's been mentioned here before. Culosi, a gainfully employed optometrist, was suspected of running a "sports book" on the side. Anyone who bets privately on football games knows just how dangerous these local thugs are; guys like your milkman, the convenience store clerk, the deli owner. Hardened criminals, just like Culosi. :rolleyes:

The very fact that a SWAT callout occurred for this warrant is a travesty of American Justice. If they had a warrant, two officers could have served it at a fraction of the manpower expense as the entire SWAT Team. He has to leave his home to go to work sometime.

If we continue to escalate low risk warrants into high risk take-downs, the trend will continue. To what end? Oh, that's right, he was probably a criminal; he should have known the possible sentence for gambling in America is death. So now let's figure out how TFL'ers can make this one, too, "the perp's" fault.

The man was unarmed. In absence of evidence that the officer has reason to fire, it's a negligent shooting. At what point does that rise to criminal negligence? I'd say, at the point that you have overwhelming force on your side, the suspect is not armed, the suspect has not made any overtly threatening gesture, and you point your muzzle at his chest and pull the trigger. Your intent does not matter; you just took a man's life due to gross negligence. Pay the bill.

Much as I hate to see any good cop face negligent homicide charges, there has to be some baseline of responsibility. If the facts are as I have described (and there seems to be no evidence offered to the contrary), this case exceeds that baseline.
Rich
 
Fully agreed as to all points, Mr. Lucibella. This one was very local and greatly upset a lot of us here in Northern Virginia. We have since learned the SWAT call-outs are SOP for all warrant service in this jurisdiction (Fairfax County, Virginia).

There have been some iffy calls here in the past. One such was was that horrid affair where a plainclothes officer from PG County, Maryland tracked one Prince Jones into Virginia, confronted him at gun point, and then shot him dead when he attempted to escape. They had the wrong guy, and there was much confusion about the detective's story, but the Fairfax County prosecutor, Mr. Horan, declined prosecution. A civil jury awarded Mr. Jones's survivors 3.7 million dollars.

But when the Culosi shooting occurred, I thought, surely this one crosses the line . . .

When the initial Department response came out, I confess, I was sorely disappointed. Though not nearly as disappointed as the Culosi family.
 
No matter.....it's very different today; today, we need not worry about .gov excess.
Click to expand...
I advocate carefully considering the ramifications of two very different courses of action. You allege that excess lies in one direction, so share your definition of where the line is crossed.
 
I advocate carefully considering the ramifications of two very different courses of action. You allege that excess lies in one direction, so share your definition of where the line is crossed.
Click to expand...

I think he means that he wants you to say exactly where the line in the sand is, where the .gov exceeds warranted force on non-violent suspects.

Didn't you say it in post #12?

I'd suggest it's pretty clear when folks get killed by SWAT teams and they aren't high-risk offenders in the first place.

And I also think he wants you to explore the opposite side of the fence, where the fed.gov does little or nothing to boost its appearance, visibility and strength in the face of international terrorism and free market espionage.
 
Rich,

My original point was that the UK is at a crossroads. If individual police officers are held criminally liable for honest efforts to protect the public from imminent danger, the police will inevitably become less aggressive. The UK is in the process of determining whether the police should "protect and serve" or "observe and report" in the future.

I took your response ("From your lips to Joe Stalin's ear.") to be critical and would appreciate an explanation of why you think my post was supportive of government excess.
 
I think he means that he wants you to say exactly where the line in the sand is, where the .gov exceeds warranted force on non-violent suspects.

Didn't you say it in post #12?
Click to expand...
My question was more general about the line for warranted force. I happen to agree with Rich's assessment in post #12, but Rich did not address situations in which the police believe a suspect presents imminent danger to the public.
 
Ahhhhh-
My point was simple. If good men need to be excused from bad acts in order to feel safe enough to do their jobs, they have probably chosen the wrong profession.

This was a bad shooting and I'm tired of hearing about "acceptable losses" of innocents in order that others may feel justified that they did their job properly. I'm not in favor of pillory of each and every LEO who makes an honest mistake; but some mistakes are so egregious; some "investigations" so focused on "a bust" that good old fashioned police work goes out the window.

I also blame society for demanding "more arrests".....more arrests is not the answer; more good ones is. That requires quality investigative work; especially when contemplating Banana Republic reminiscent armed invasion of a man's home....and it requires the time to do so that investigation. If it means we take less gamblers and pot smokers off the street in body bags, I'd call that a win-win.
Rich
 
^^^

I agree wholeheartedly. And I believe that somebody should be held accountable in the Menezes case - whether it be the administrators who determined the rules of engagement, or those who provided questionable intelligence, or possibly even the shooters if they violated procedures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top