17 Aug 05
http://www.itv.com/news/index_1677571.html
Apparently he didn't run in the escalotors or jump over a barrier, he was wearing a denim jacket and he was shot 7 times in the face and 1 in torso according to post-mortem.
He was wrongly identified him as Hussain Osman and he was shot because he ran a little on the platform to catch the metro before warnings had been issued.
It's murder, pure and simple.
- Joined
- 20 Oct 02
- Moves
- 599523
17 Aug 05
Originally posted by PalynkaNo, that was a tragic case of mistaken identity, not murder. very tragic, I wont argue that. Now the people on the subway that the bombs blew up, that was murder.
http://www.itv.com/news/index_1677571.html
Apparently he didn't run in the escalotors or jump over a barrier, he was wearing a denim jacket and he was shot 7 times in the face and 1 in torso according to post-mortem.
He was wrongly identified him as Hussain Osman and he was shot because he ran a little on the platform to catch the metro before warnings had been issued.
It's murder, pure and simple.
17 Aug 05
Originally posted by PalynkaAre you trying to say the police went out that day with the intention to kill him........ i think not so it manslaughter not murder
http://www.itv.com/news/index_1677571.html
Apparently he didn't run in the escalotors or jump over a barrier, he was wearing a denim jacket and he was shot 7 times in the face and 1 in torso according to post-mortem.
He was wrongly identified him as Hussain Osman and he was shot because he ran a little on the platform to catch the metro before warnings had been issued.
It's murder, pure and simple.
17 Aug 05
1 edit
Originally posted by leestaticThey had the intention to kill him, they pointed a gun at his head and shot 7 times. How is that manslaughter?
Are you trying to say the police went out that day with the intention to kill him........ i think not so it manslaughter not murder
Edit: Shot 11 times. hit 7 in the head, 1 torse, 3 missed.
Another link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4157892.stm
17 Aug 05
Originally posted by PalynkaIf this report is confirmed, it shows that every bit of information that the police gave on that day to justify the shooting was a lie. I bet it works; I guarantee you most people will always believe he was wearing a winter coat, jumped a barrier and ran down the escalators. Some police and some police spokesman should be canned at the least.
http://www.itv.com/news/index_1677571.html
Apparently he didn't run in the escalotors or jump over a barrier, he was wearing a denim jacket and he was shot 7 times in the face and 1 in torso according to post-mortem.
He was wrongly identified him as Hussain Osman and he was shot because he ran a little on the platform to catch the metro before warnings had been issued.
It's murder, pure and simple.
17 Aug 05
Originally posted by Palynkafor murder you have to prove premeditated malice, there is no way that the police involved will be up for murder not in a million years.
They had the intention to kill him, they pointed a gun at his head and shot 7 times. How is that manslaughter?
Edit: Shot 11 times. hit 7 in the head, 1 torse, 3 missed.
Another link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4157892.stm
17 Aug 05
Originally posted by leestaticWrong, premeditation is for first degree murder.
for murder you have to prove premeditated malice, there is no way that the police involved will be up for murder not in a million years.
From Wikipedia:
Manslaughter, sometimes called criminally negligent homicide, is a kind of homicide wherein a person causes the death of another through negligence or recklessness (not recognized in Australia) or where a person intentionally kills another but is not liable for murder because he is able to avail himself of a defense, such as insanity or diminished capacity.
7 shots in the head is not negligence or recklessness. It is intent, albeit not premeditation. Voluntary manslaughter doesn't exist in Britain, I believe, and even if it did, there was no addequate provocation.
17 Aug 05
Originally posted by PalynkaUK LAW: murder
Wrong, premeditation is for first degree murder.
From Wikipedia:
Manslaughter, sometimes called criminally negligent homicide, is a kind of homicide wherein a person causes the death of another through negligence or recklessness (not recognized in Australia) or where a person intentionally kills another but is not liable for murder because he is a ...[text shortened]... er doesn't exist in Britain, I believe, and even if it did, there was no addequate provocation.
Murder is the crime of intentionally causing the death of another human being, without lawful excuse. When an illegal death was not caused intentionally, but was caused by recklessness or negligence (or there is some defense, such as diminished capacity), the crime committed may be referred to as manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide, which are considered to be less serious than murder.
i'd say if anything it comes under recklessness or negligence.
17 Aug 05
Originally posted by Palynkadon't get me wrong the guy should still be alive, but i don't think for one minute that the police decided to go target practice, they obviously felt he was a threat
And why exactly are you defending the police for?
I'm just saying someone must be tried for murder, a trial would obviously be needed and it seems some indignation is in order because there are no indictments whatsoever.
Why are the police afraid of a trial?
17 Aug 05
Originally posted by leestatichow is it recklessness or negligence? Was he shooting into the air or did the gun go off?
UK LAW: murder
Murder is the crime of intentionally causing the death of another human being, without lawful excuse. When an illegal death was not caused intentionally, but was caused by recklessness or negligence (or there is some defense, such as diminished capacity), the crime committed may be referred to as manslaughter or criminally negligent homicid ...[text shortened]... be less serious than murder.
i'd say if anything it comes under recklessness or negligence.
How about letting a judge rule on that?
17 Aug 05
Originally posted by leestaticOh, ok, then if the police comes one day shoots you in the subway, they would just apologize to your wife and everything would be ok again.
don't get me wrong the guy should still be alive, but i don't think for one minute that the police decided to go target practice, they obviously felt he was a threat
A badge is not a license to kill, policemen who kill without justification must be prosecuted.
Quote from BBC:
According to witness accounts and statements made by police officers involved, Mr de Menezes boarded the train and was restrained by a surveillance officer before he was shot eight times.
17 Aug 05
Originally posted by PalynkaOK then why do you think they fired at him?
Oh, ok, then if the police comes one day shoots you in the subway, they would just apologize to your wife and everything would be ok again.
A badge is not a license to kill, policemen who kill without justification must be prosecuted.
Quote from BBC:
According to witness accounts and statements made by police officers involved, Mr de Menezes boar ...[text shortened]... he train and [b]was restrained by a surveillance officer before he was shot eight times.[/b]
17 Aug 05
Originally posted by leestaticBecause they are afraid. Because they are willing to risk killing an innocent that:
OK then why do you think they fired at him?
- Was wearing an open light denim jacket;
- Was restrained;
- Didn't run away.
- Vaguely resembled someone that was only a suspect.
The guy panicked and shot the suspect or he was giving orders for execution. Either way it's murder in my book, but all I'm asking for is a trial.
17 Aug 05
Originally posted by PalynkaOK, there's a bit of a misunderstanding here. There is no doubt the police intentionally killed the guy, but I'm sure they would argue a "justification" defense i.e. that they reasonably believed that he was a suicide bomber about to use an explosive device and they had no choice but to kill him. If a jury totally disbelieved them, it could be murder. If the jury reached the conclusion that they consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable possibility that they were killing an innocent man, they could be found guilty of manslaughter. If the jury found that the belief that the guy was a suicide bomber was unreasonable and a gross deviation from the standard of care a reasonable person would observe in the situation, they could found them guilty of criminally negligent homicide. If they accepted the defense, they would find them Not Guilty.
how is it recklessness or negligence? Was he shooting into the air or did the gun go off?
How about letting a judge rule on that?
This is all based on New York state law, but I believe it's pretty similar in virtually all systems based on Anglo-Saxon law.