When the police execute a member of the public then sure as eggs is eggs an inevitable sequence of dishonest acts will follow: the murder victim will have his name blackened - allegations of shoplifting will be dredged up from his school day; His friends & associates will be blackened; he will be alleged to have behaved suspiciously; the police will collude together to fabricate the evidence justifying their murder. Then the specious mitigation will begin, the usual - “they have a very difficult job to do” “the new reality of suicide terror means they have to shoot to kill - ‘just in case’ “.
So Geeklawyer was not altogether surprised to see that the police are claiming that de Menezes was “high on coke” (residual traces) and that he was “behaving aggressively and refusing to obey instructions” “he approached them with his hands below his waist”. What a pile of crap. The trigger happy cop who executed Menezes has the nickname “Britney Spears” because ‘whoops - he’s done it again’ he’d previously executed an innocent man in Kent after mistaking him for a robber. Presumably that man also moved his hands suspiciously.
It’s incredibly hard therefore to believe that the police evidence is anything other an artificial fabric of 100% perjury and invention.
In 15 or so years there have been 41 killings by the police and not one successful prosecution. Until the police are made truly accountable for their killing and perjury, and made subject to the same law as the rest of us there can be little confidence in them.
Blair and the Metropolitan filth will walk free.
De Menezes would be rolling in his grave. Well, he would be if the police hadn’t pinned him down.
Great polemic. However, I’m not sure why you have a problem with the fact that the defendant in a criminal trial wishes to advance a defence. I know that you have already decided the defence is nonsense, but the difficulty is that the jury swore an oath to try the case on the evidence, rather than their prejudices. It is inconvenient, I know, but the rule of law means that there is one standard for everyone, even the people one doesn’t like.
Moreover, it is also the case that sometimes (as Freud would put it) a cigar is just a cigar - and that an accident is just an accident. It is not always necessary to allocate blame for something to be resolved. Speaking as someone who has lost a close relative in a suicide bombing, I rather wish the police had shot the gentleman before he exploded himself on top of my 15 year old cousin. That is not to say that S De Menezes’ death is an acceptable matter - I am content to abide the verdict on that - merely that the issue of when and when not to intervene is inevitably made under highly charged circumstances in the most difficult of conditions.
Nor is this an “execution”. Perhaps such serious words should be saved until they are apposite? The Prosecution case is cock-up, not conspiracy. Unless, of course, that is part of the conspiracy too? Bet it’s the same people who murdered Diana.
Thanks, I always like a nice bit of polemic, me.
I’m sure you don’t mean that the deplorable killing of your innocent cousin justifies the killing of an equally innocent Brazilian?
Sadly the officers who executed de Menezes never were put on trial, nor were their seniors. Had they been, I would have been content for them to be fairly tried and then convicted, even though the prospects of convicting a non-bent cop of anything other than dropping litter is vanishingly small. However we’ll never because the CPS lacked the nerve to stand up to their political masters.
Almost like living in Saudi Arabia, in some respects.