Are we safe? Suspected terrorist attack in London this afternoon

[Beef Oven]

I don't think they are (to me)
and I don't think that people are right in thinking this
but
I can easily understand why they might
If you believe that the British Army is involved in a war which is killing your innocent brothers and sisters
It seems fairly simple to believe that all members of the Forces are a threat
which doesn't make it right to kill them (of course)
or doesn't make it right either for the forces to do the same

Is it the manner in which the killing is done that is so objectionable to some ?
Is it somehow OK to sit in an office at RAF Waddington and bomb people remotely but not to do it with your bare hands ?

ALL of it is wrong IMV

A bit convoluted MrGG, could you just explain the bit where you say in post #21 that in some ways people are right in the perception that 'ALL' British soldiers are a threat (and it would be helpful if you could use yesterday's incident as an example)?

[Pabmusic]

Neither 'premeditation' nor 'malice aforethought' are relevant / valid any more.

The current CPS guidelines in relation to murder state:

"the intent for murder is the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH), nothing less. Foresight is no more than evidence from which the jury may draw the inference of intent, c.f. R v Woollin [1999] 1 Cr App R 8"

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/h...ughter/#intent

Thanks. I was aware of this, but as 'malice aforethought is still part of the definition of murder (at least in England and Wales) it can't be ignored. What you give is the current definition of 'malice aforethought' or intent.

Your wrong. It's simply not true that killing of that poor chap was premeditated. It's perverse to think that the judge would have reasoned that the police officers hade pre-decided to extinguish someone's life that day, but got the wrong person. Even in the topsy-turvy R3 Forum world that is silly.

Also, you tell us that you think it's manslaughter!!!!!!! Good dollop of double-think :winkeye:

We all know that the inhuman event of yesterday is far-removed from the Stockwell incident, but we can't allow ourselves the luxury plain-thinking :laugh:

Funny old politically correct world innit? :biggrin:

Oh, Beefy! :erm:

Of course it was premeditated. When the officer approached Menezes, he intended to kill him (not even to cause him serious bodily harm) - that was openly admitted at the time. The whole operation can be seen as an intentional exercise aimed at killing a suspected terrorist, if it was thought he posed a threat. It is unrealistic to argue that that was not an option, especially in the light of the result. The officer(s) took the view that he was a threat. They killed him, just as they had intended to do in such circumstances. Their judgement was woefully wrong, but that does not negate their intent to kill him.

What are you arguing? That the killing was OK? That it was wrong? That it was an accident? The killing was intended and carried out (no doubt) very efficiently. They just got the wrong man. Does that mean they didn't intend to kill? Of course not - they thought they'd got the right man and they intended to kill him. What do you not understand about this?

The questions that remain are (1) ought the police to be allowed to use deliberate lethal force if they think it is justified, and (2) did they act in good faith (despite their being terribly mistaken) and on the best evidence available?

If the answer to (1) is yes, then the issue is one of whether the police did all they could in the time they had to satisfy themselves he was an immediate threat (the Americans have the concept of 'clear and present danger'- we don't, but it amounts to the same thing). My own view is that there was plenty of time between Menezes's leaving home and his arriving at the tube station for suspicions to have been raised about identity or whether he was carrying a bomb. If I'm right (and I might not be, of course) then it would be all the more difficult for the police to argue that they were acting in good faith. In such an event, manslaughter would be the appropriate verdict because of the reckless way in which the police would have acted. No one (surely?) seriously suggests it was murder (which would imply a deliberate act to cause injury with no justification). [I am very aware or Mr GG's view here, however.]

[An_Inspector_Calls]

The bovine one is quite right. In one one case we have state trained killers executing a civilian unconnected with the conflict between 'The West' and quasi-Islamic terrorism. In the other we have non-state-trained killers running down and hacking to death a member of the armed forces currently engaged in that conflict. What could be more different?

Well perhaps you should start one of those tasteful threads so much enjoyed by many here entitled "State Trained Killers 1, Non-state-Trained Killers 1"?

[amateur51]

Both are dreadful and there's no excuse for killing people. But a premeditated murder shouldn't be compared to, say, for example, manslaughter.

But you are comparing them :yikes:

[amateur51]

It's different in the sense that it was not premeditated. It's really as simple as that.

P.S. The death of Mr Mendez was shocking, sad, avoidable and very upsetting.

De Menezes was killed under a shoot-to-kill policy - that is established. What's unpremeditated about that?

[amateur51]

Really? You must be giving a different meaning to 'premeditated' than anyone else does. There can be very little that is more premeditated that to keep a suspect under close observation, follow him from his home (in continuous contact with the operation commander), onto an underground train and then to execute him (8 shots to the head, wasn't it?). That is wholly premeditated, just like the 'death on the rock' incident in the 1980s.

The Menezes killing was entirely premeditated. It was carefully planned and controlled; they just got the wrong man.

I don't want this to become a rerun of the recent discussions of this terrible incident, but I can't help but wonder how attitudes on all sides might have been different if they'd got the right person, with a bomb strapped to him. You see, there are two big questions arising out of this case - how did they make such a terrible error in wrongly identifying Menezes? And is a 'shoot to kill' policy acceptable in a democratic society anyway? The police were entirely guilty (of manslaughter, in my view) in respect of the blunder. The second issue is rather more difficult.

Well reasoned, Pabs as always :ela::ok: Old Hooky this morning

[french frank]

I don't want this to become a rerun of the recent discussions of this terrible incident, but I can't help but wonder how attitudes on all sides might have been different if they'd got the right person, with a bomb strapped to him. You see, there are two big questions arising out of this case - how did they make such a terrible error in wrongly identifying Menezes? And is a 'shoot to kill' policy acceptable in a democratic society anyway? The police were entirely guilty (of manslaughter, in my view) in respect of the blunder. The second issue is rather more difficult.

Worth repeating this?

[Beef Oven]

De Menezes was killed under a shoot-to-kill policy - that is established. What's unpremeditated about that?

It's the shame a judge didn't call the Radio 3 Forum for a direction :laugh:

[Beef Oven]

Worth repeating this?

Worth Pab desisting from returning to recent discussion, I'd say. Although I guess that what you meant.

[Beef Oven]

But you are comparing them :yikes:

Didn't. Ha ha!

[Beef Oven]

Well perhaps you should start one of those tasteful threads so much enjoyed by many here entitled "State Trained Killers 1, Non-state-Trained Killers 1"?

No need for a new thread, the usual suspects are coming out of the woodwork on this thread. :laugh:

[french frank]

I don't want this to become a rerun of the recent discussions of this terrible incident, but I can't help but wonder how attitudes on all sides might have been different if they'd got the right person, with a bomb strapped to him. You see, there are two big questions arising out of this case - how did they make such a terrible error in wrongly identifying Menezes? And is a 'shoot to kill' policy acceptable in a democratic society anyway? The police were entirely guilty (of manslaughter, in my view) in respect of the blunder. The second issue is rather more difficult.

Worth repeating this?

Worth Pab desisting from returning to recent discussion, I'd say. Although I guess that what you meant.

No, that isn't what I meant.

I was suggesting (as I do not know for sure) that in one case the police believed they were executing a man with a bomb strapped to his body, and in so doing imagined they were protecting the public from someone who would do them harm.

Of course, it may on the other hand be that they knew perfectly well that he was an innocent man but they thought they would be praised if they made him appear to be one. The police behaviour after the event was [apparently] criminal.

I thought the difficult issue to which Pabmusic was referring was whether a shoot-to-kill policy would, in a general way, be justified to prevent a terrorist act from being perpetrated.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

it was my understanding that the police considered the individual later identified as de Menezes aa a suicide bomber wearing a vest containing explosives and followed the protocol for dealing with such ... shoot first and fast ... i for one am very happy that they follow such a protocol even if they get it wrong .... their response yesterday was neither first nor fast but decisive according to eye witness accounts of 'robocop' ... the cub scout lady was extremely brave and very human in just talking to the assailant, but might as easily been headless this morning ....

in my experience the IRA takes some beating for atrocities in our cities .... but as Ian points out we are bombing civilian populations in Pakistan, Iraq,, and no doubt elsewhere, by remote control ... is this killing so much more awful because it was face to face with a machete?

the problem is who can any one talk to, to jaw jaw .... the IRA wouldn't talk for decades ... the current terrorists seem to be headless loners just going off on one .... in Boston, then London ...

are we safer than in the 70s when the IRA was bombing London, yes i think so .... being evacuated to stand outside office towers of sheet glass fascias with a potential bomb inside was not safe at all in my experience ...

[Pabmusic]

...]I thought the difficult issue to which Pabmusic was referring was whether a shoot-to-kill policy would, in a general way, be justified to prevent a terrorist act from being perpetrated.

Spot on - and it's a far-from-easy one to decide.

[Beef Oven]

No, that isn't what I meant.

I was suggesting (as I do not know for sure) that in one case the police believed they were executing a man with a bomb strapped to his body, and in so doing imagined they were protecting the public from someone who would do them harm.

Of course, it may on the other hand be that they knew perfectly well that he was an innocent man but they thought they would be praised if they made him appear to be one. The police behaviour after the event was [apparently] criminal.

I thought the difficult issue to which Pabmusic was referring was whether a shoot-to-kill policy would, in a general way, be justified to prevent a terrorist act from being perpetrated.

I prefer all 'swans are white'.