British police department blamed for killing of an innocent man mistakenly taken for a "terrorist."

For those that don't want to sign up for latimes, you can read the story here:

http://www.reuters.com/article/asiaTopNews...-30279020071101

 

Here's a link you don't have to register for: http://www.guardian.co.uk/menezes/story/0,,2203326,00.html
(darnit, eagle, you beat me to it!)

And here's a link to everything about the case: http://www.guardian.co.uk/menezes/0,,1691452,00.html

 

Lots of errors on this one ... if they really thought De Menezes was Hussein Osman, they should have stopped him before he boarded the two busses earlier, and before he got on the subway train.

How do you stop a person with a vest bomb on? Anyone know?

I didn't see a lot of explanation of what exactly happened when he was killed. Had he reached into his jacket? Did the officers have some reason to believe he was acting to detonate the bomb they believed he was wearing, and they shot to minimize damage to others? There's very little on the rationale' of the shooting.

If the English catch the real terrorist, Osman, they should charge him with De Menezes' death as well as the attempted murder of hundreds of Londoners in their failed bomb attacks. Without Osman's cowardly actions, an innocent man would not have been mistakenly killed.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Nov 5 2007, 03:42 PM) [snapback]535083[/snapback]</div>

Thats ridiculous, and an attempt to shift the blame. The police were responsible for their actions, not the terrorist. They had the wrong guy, and apparently didn't follow the proper procedures (i think i read that they doctored photos they had to make it look more like him).

So what about the person who ticks off a coworker at work? That coworker goes home and takes out his frustration on his wife - who should be charged, the guy who performed the action, or the guy whose actions led up to it without his knowledge?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Nov 5 2007, 03:21 PM) [snapback]535104[/snapback]</div>

You can be charged with the result of your criminal actions even if you don't do them directly. Your analogy doesn't work unless you can show that the original action was criminal and led directly to the subsequent crime; and without the prior action, the subsequent crime would not have happened.

Do you really believe the British cops were out to shoot someone that day? That if Osman was not on the loose they would have looked up this poor guy and shot him in the head? There's no evidence of that, but there is good evidence that Osman's fugitive status led to a manhunt, and poor De Menezes was being followed and tragically identified as the fugitive suicide bomber. De Menezes death is due to Osman's criminal actions.

Here's a good analogy straight from the OC: a southern Californian was charged with the murder of police helicopter pilots who crashed into each other trying to follow him on his high speed chase ... the concept is that his actions had a reckless disregard for life and he created the situation that caused the police officers to be in a position where they risked, and lost, their lives. The high speed chase perp was charged with murder.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Nov 5 2007, 11:37 PM) [snapback]535258[/snapback]</div>

Obviously it goes beyond a simple analogy in that the individuals in question have made it their life's work to kill innocent civilians. With terrorism the stakes are much higher, the potential for mistakes are also present. I would not hold those acting to protect us to a higher standard than those they are in a mortal struggle with. Mistakes will happen - unfortunately. The ultimate responsibility lies on the shoulders of the terrorist - who probably would read some of the opinions here with glee - and is certainly not mourning the loss of innocent life and enjoying the fact that the security forces are now probably operating with even greater restraints.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 6 2007, 04:26 AM) [snapback]535407[/snapback]</div>

I can't remember the legal terms, but it is related to causation; concurrent causation or proximate causation, something like that. If an original action is the cause of an action by a second party that harms a third, then the original action person can be held responsible.

It is often used where in a high speed chase a cop car crashes into a civilian's car and the civilian is killed. The cop is not tried for murder, but the original perp who caused the high speed chase in the first case can be held for one of the negligent murder charges. "If not for" the original perp's actions, then the cop would not have been chasing him, and the civilian would not have been killed.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Nov 5 2007, 09:37 PM) [snapback]535258[/snapback]</div>

I'm pretty sure the helicopter pilots were news reporters. Not police.

Causation is also very subjective.


De Menezes death is the result of very sloppy police work (the verdict of the Criminal court). I agree that they weren't murders either.

He should never have made it into the subway. That was a huge mistake in judgement.

A bomb going off in an enclosed area (subway) is much more powerful than a bomb going off in the street.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(n8kwx @ Nov 7 2007, 10:26 PM) [snapback]536616[/snapback]</div>

There was a recent case with TV reporters, but this one was police helicopters and the perp was convicted. His case for appeal is listed HERE, and includes this summary:

Its an interesting reading of the appeal; some jurists believe the conviction was correct, and some don't, based on the perspective of the perpetrator.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Nov 8 2007, 09:02 AM) [snapback]536684[/snapback]</div>

That's why I said causation is quite subjective. It is not always automatic or obvious. There are a lot of factors involved. That's why we need juries.

The De Menezes death is a much different, more complex situation. It was not a "hot pursuit" in the immediate aftermath of a crime. Based on what I know, I couldn't support a "felony murder" conviction in this case. Way too many separations in the chain of events.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(n8kwx @ Nov 9 2007, 09:05 PM) [snapback]537599[/snapback]</div>

So, let me get this straight:

1. Osman conspires to be a suicide bomber, blowing up hundreds of people in the London subways, but unlike his associates, evades capture. Instead of turning himself in to the authorities, he evades them, intent on carrying out his mission.

2. Police, in a heightened state of awareness, tail and kill a man they think is Osman, who they think is presenting an immediate and clear danger to riders of a subway train as he attempts to board the train.

3. You don't feel Osman bears any responsibility for creating the situation where the innocent man dies.

Sorry, I simply cannot agree, and I'm glad our laws allow for a finding of causation. I can't think of any OTHER cause for this unfortunate death than Osman's criminal activities. Mr. De Menezes is another casualty in the war on terror, just as the victims of 9/11 were. "Were it not for [radical Islamist sewer scum] Osman ..." Mr. De Menezes would still be alive.

I hope the Brits have something along this law. I suspect they do.

 

You could say that about any innocent person who was shot by a police officer, though. "If these individuals hadn't been committing armed robbery in the area, the police wouldn't have been so suspicious of what looked like a gun in that dark ally, but turned out to be a turkey sandwich".

There's a thing called due diligence. It's the responsibility of the police to ensure that they are taking the proper action and have the proper individual. From what i've read, that wasn't the case here. In fact, i even read that the police modified pictures to make de Menezes and Osman look more alike. That, if nothing else, is criminal. It says to me that the police were more concerned with looking like they were accomplishing something than actually protecting their citizens.