Pin down innocent man, put 7 bullets in his head: Oopsie! Did we violate health laws?

The BBQ Pit
1

Visit London! Police will see to your health and safety. …But don’t look like a terrorist. We shoot people that resemble terrorists. Because if we weren’t going around killing random people, the terrorists win.

Wikipedia on Jean Charles de Menezes - Now it’s only in the news (BBC) again because there’s a trial on whether this execution violated health and safety laws. The New Zealand Otago Daily Times focuses on the fact that he was pinned to his seat while being shot. (I’m reading it because NZ sounds like a nice refuge when it gets too crazy over here, not quite unrelated to this case, with runaway governments seizing more and more control over ‘their citizens’, all for their own good of course…) Don’t you feel safe now?

England prevails!

2

Welcome Melanc!

Not a bad subject for the Pit, but two years old and so rather past its official “Best Before” date. I give it a three.

3

Sounds like a good case can be made for lead poisoning, so yeah, probably a health law violation.

4

Use of hyperbole to exaggerate the true extent of a problem? 8.5

Use of clear text to ironically describe alternate way of looking at problem? 1.5

Use of super powerful links to demonstrate problem? 3.5

Use of grammar and plot outline? 7.0

Overall Pit assessment? 4.5 out of 10

Not a bad effort. Welcome.

It was a sad footnote to a very sad event in recent history. My heart goes out to the innocent man’s family.

5

[QUOTE=Paul in Saudi]
Not a bad subject for the Pit, but two years old and so rather past its official “Best Before” date. I give it a three.
[/QUOTE]
Old? It’s current headlines from October 1st, 2007, respectively October 10th, 2007, today. Would you consider it old when there’s a trial on what the fuck the police were thinking when you were killed two years ago?

I don’t want my government to put me into DNA and fingerprint databases. I don’t want them to log every phone call I make. I want an answer from my government when my neighbour is carried off to a secret interrogation camp (I don’t want secret interrogation camps, period.) I don’t want secret GeStaPo police that can do whatever they want in the name of ‘fighting terror’. I want to use a train without fear of getting followed and terminated. I don’t want special forces to break down my door and shoot my dog. Oops, no terrorist? Wrong house, can happen. Have a nice day. Pay your taxes.

The issue is more current than ever. I pit Big Brother governments. The whole lot of them, going so crazy over terror that I fear them more than I fear terrorism. I demand a 5.0 out of 10, at least.

6

[QUOTE=Mellivora capensis]
Sounds like a good case can be made for lead poisoning, so yeah, probably a health law violation.
[/QUOTE]
Ironically, the current focus seems to be on whether anyone else has been in danger.

7

Oh, for fuck’s sake…

PiS, BBF - newsflash: Pit Ratings stopped being funny or clever a little while before Oakminster took his toys and left.

You Dancing Monkey-Clowns

8

Look with grade inflation and all, I can give you a five, but I don’t feel good about it.

Besides, you have to admire the British police’s professionalism. From point-blank range, not a single bullet missed. New York policemen would need at least thirty shots to make seven hits.

9

Well, not quite - it’s whether the public at large (including Menezes) were endangered. I agree it seems rather self-evident (and the charge almost insultingly trite), but by and large the prosecution is a good thing, if only for forcing the details out into the open. We might hope to see further action taken if previously unknown facts emerge, and if it makes that abject cunt Ian Blair’s* position untenable, then at least some measure of justice might have been served.

What is ironic is that the incompetence of the operation in general appears to have been a major factor in preventing far stronger charges from being brought. The presence of so many people in the control room overseeing the operation, and the confusion over who was where, when, and in control of what, has meant that identifying specific people to prosecute has proven all but impossible. Hence the corporate charges.

  • Argh! Just thinking the man’s name makes me physically angry.
10

All armed police in the UK are volunteers. It’s acknowledged here that these volunteers do a difficult job where split second decisions are the difference between life and death.

May seem odd to other nations, but that’s how we roll.

As such, there is a consistent pressure from armed police not to prosecute in cases of mistaken shootings. Essentially, the police unions threat is that they will withdraw all volunteers for armed duty. There is no requirement for any officer to undertake armed duty, so it would leave Britain without armed police teams.

In addition, the CPS concluded that there was insifficient evidence to charge any individual officers with manslaughter etc. The difficulty was proving criminal intent, rather than botched operational procedures.

The decision to use Health and Safety legislation allows the organisation as a whole to be prosecuted, and sanctions to be put in place, without the difficulty of proving intent on the part of specific ground-teams. This legislation can lead to an unlimited fine, and was the best option available.

You might argue about the sense in having a volunteer-only armed police service, but that’s perhaps another thread.

11

Just to put this in context:

  • London has been the subject of terrorist attacks for decades (the IRA) before the recent two atrocities

  • although it is appalling that an innocent man has been killed, it’s a single incident

  • undoubtedly the officers who fired the shots thought they were facing a suicide bomber who was likely to detonate at any moment

  • the blame lies with supervisor confusion about identification and not having armed police ready to detain the suspect when he left the building

12

[QUOTE=e-logic]
All armed police in the UK are volunteers. It’s acknowledged here that these volunteers do a difficult job where split second decisions are the difference between life and death.

May seem odd to other nations, but that’s how we roll.
[/quote]
All armed police in the United States are also volunteers. I’m unaware of any state or city that has a draft for its police force.

Or do you mean that armed cops in the UK are unpaid? I highly doubt that.
[QUOTE=e-logic]
As such, there is a consistent pressure from armed police not to prosecute in cases of mistaken shootings. Essentially, the police unions threat is that they will withdraw all volunteers for armed duty. There is no requirement for any officer to undertake armed duty, so it would leave Britain without armed police teams.
[/quote]
Well fuck that shit.

They want the best of both worlds, it seems. They want to be able to carry and use a gun, but to have none of the oversight nor sense of responsibility associated with that. Cops with attitudes like that shouldn’t be armed in the first place. A society that doesn’t have a proper system of accountability for its law enforcement officers leaves itself open to incompetence, corruption, and intimidation.

Mistaken shootings should ALL be investigated, and whether or not to prosecute should be determined on a case-by-case basis. If a shooting in found to be justified or reasonable, then that’s fine. If a shooting is found to be the result of training or operational deficiencies, then appropriate sanctions, demotions, disciplinary action, or firings should occur, with criminal charges if the level of negligence rises high enough to support them. And if a shooting is found to be the result of corruption or criminal intent, the cop should be prosecuted like anyone else.

What there should NOT be is a blanket reluctance to prosecute based on whining and thinly-veiled blackmail by the cops themselves.
[QUOTE=e-logic]
In addition, the CPS concluded that there was insifficient evidence to charge any individual officers with manslaughter etc. The difficulty was proving criminal intent, rather than botched operational procedures.

The decision to use Health and Safety legislation allows the organisation as a whole to be prosecuted, and sanctions to be put in place, without the difficulty of proving intent on the part of specific ground-teams. This legislation can lead to an unlimited fine, and was the best option available.
[/quote]
If there was insufficient evidence to charge any officer with manslaughter, or whatever, that’s fine. Police should have the same benefit of the doubt as any other citizen. But if someone died because of botched operational procedures, then there needs to be more internal accountability than a general fine levied on the department. The individuals responsible for not following proper procedure need to be disciplined or demoted or fired. And again, if their level of incompetence rises to criminal negligence, they should be charged. Holding no individuals responsible in cases of institutional failure generally gives the people within institutions little incentive to fix the problems.

13

For mhendo:

Police in the UK are not routinely armed. Standard police officers on patrol do not carry firearms.

We have dedicated armed response teams, requests to be part of such teams are made on a volunteer basis by already-serving officers.

14

BTW, I agree with your points re. individual accountability. But shootings by police in the UK are still a “big deal” compared with other nations (USA in particular).

Since 1985 there have been 50 members of the pubic shot dead by UK police. That’s about 2 per year over the last 20 yrs. Not sure how that compares with the US etc, but the rarity of these events does explain some of the police unions’ mindset.

15

[QUOTE=mhendo]
All armed police in the United States are also volunteers. I’m unaware of any state or city that has a draft for its police force.

Or do you mean that armed cops in the UK are unpaid? I highly doubt that.Well fuck that shit.

[/QUOTE]

No. Of course no-one is drafted into the police force, but then most UK police officers are unarmed. The point is that no police officer in the UK is forced to carry a firearm. It’s accepted that there are times when armed officers are necessary. Those who do have volunteered for the responsibility.

However, you do have some good points, especially regarding the oversight of the use of said weapons.

In the case mentioned in the OP, there was a reluctance to prosecute because some feel that if police officers are forced to take responsibility for their inappropriate use of guns, maybe fewer officers will volunteer for firearms duty. I think that is a feeble argument. So, in order to avoid prosecuting the officers involved for killing a man who was innocent of any terrorist crime, they decided to prosecute the Met for “failing to protect his health and safety”. Well, I guess that’s one way of describing the act of unloading several rounds into his head.

But unlike individual officers, the Met as an institution can’t be sent to prison.

16

[QUOTE=e-logic]
Police in the UK are not routinely armed. Standard police officers on patrol do not carry firearms.

We have dedicated armed response teams, requests to be part of such teams are made on a volunteer basis by already-serving officers.
[/QUOTE]
I lived in the UK for two years, so i knew that regular cops aren’t armed. Thanks for the clarification about exactly what “volunteer” means in this case.

I’m standing by the substance of my argument, however. The threat of refusing to carry firearms should not be acceptable as a reason to bypass proper oversight and regulation of police use of guns. And this should apply whether the nation is question has lots of officer-involved shooting, or very few.

As for this particular case, even if criminal charges aren’t going to be brought against any individuals, the fact is that someone fucked up here. It might be more than one person, and it might be that the appropriate punishment is internal discipline rather than a criminal trial, but it seems essentially pointless to me to fine the Met as a whole.

17

[QUOTE=glee]
although it is appalling that an innocent man has been killed, it’s a single incident
[/QUOTE]
Yeah right, it’s always a single incident. Harry Stanley, Diarmuid O’Neill, at least Mohammed Abdulkahar and Abul Koyair survived. Appalling, single incidents.

[QUOTE=glee]
undoubtedly the officers who fired the shots thought they were facing a suicide bomber who was likely to detonate at any moment
[/QUOTE]
They didn’t even know he’s carrying a bomb, let alone who he was. The problem is that bulky clothes, ‘having Mongolian eyes’, and entering a train sufficed for our ‘terrorist hunters’ to shoot someone.

[QUOTE=glee]
the blame lies with supervisor confusion about identification and not having armed police ready to detain the suspect when he left the building
[/quote]
Ah. We need more armed police so that innocent people could be shot before they enter their trains?

18

As long as we are passing out grades
Clarity of Wiki article 2.0

WTF?
Over.

19

[QUOTE=e-logic]
Since 1985 there have been 50 members of the pubic shot dead by UK police. That’s about 2 per year over the last 20 yrs. Not sure how that compares with the US (…)
[/QUOTE]
I’d just like to say how much I enjoyed this little joke.

20

[QUOTE=Rick]
As long as we are passing out grades
Clarity of Wiki article 2.0

WTF?
Over.
[/QUOTE]

What’s unclear? If you don’t know what the Tube, the Underground, or the Metro Police are, just click the frickin’ links – you’re in Wikipedia, fer chrissake!