"Put aside any emotion"?

I'm too shocked, upset and outraged at the moment to write anything decent about this, so here goes the usual "a bunch of URLs" (and I may write about this later) post. Sorry about this post being in English only, as I am so upset that I can not recollect myself.

In the United Kingdom, the police forces are above the law, it seems.

- Google News via kwout

The Daily Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3542047/De-Menezes-inquest-Unlawful-killing-verdict-ruled-out-jury-told.html

Reminding them that the Brazilian's mother, Maria Otone de Menezes, had seen much of the evidence, the coroner added: "I know that your heart will go out to her.

"But these are emotional reactions, ladies and gentlemen, and you are charged with returning a verdict based on evidence.

"Put aside any emotion - put them to one side."

EVIDENCE? WHAT EVIDENCE? It was the officers who shot the poor Brazilian guy dead that were "emotional" and failed to present reasonable "evidence", as far as I know (via news articles). They choked on tears, they said it should not have happened, but the fact is that they shot to kill. (They shot five times, or seven times, I don't remember.)

Who is this coroner, anyway?

Profile: Sir Michael Wright
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/dec/02/profile-sir-michael-wright-de-menezes

I only hope that he will not be telling us that he regrets about this after he retires - something worse than what Lord Bingham did very recently.

And this (below) seems to me some "newspaper opinion poll" rather than something very legal:

De Menezes inquest: jury's questionnaire in full
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/dec/02/menezes-uksecurity

You have to decide between two available short-term verdicts:

1) LAWFUL KILLING
On the facts of this case, you should return a verdict of lawful killing if you find that officers C2 and C12, when they shot Mr de Menezes, were acting in lawful defence of themselves and/or others.

2) OPEN VERDICT
If, having considered all the evidence, you consider that the necessary elements of a lawful killing verdict are not established as being more likely than not, you should return an open verdict.

THE QUESTIONNAIRE
You must answer "yes", "no" or "cannot decide".
1) Did officer C12 shout the words "armed police" at Mr de Menezes before firing?
2) Did Mr de Menezes stand up from his seat before he was grabbed in a bear-hug by officer Ivor?
3) Did Mr de Menezes move towards C12 before he was grabbed in a bear hug by officer Ivor?

FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION
4) Do you consider that any of the following factors caused or contributed to the death of Mr de Menezes?
a) The suicide attacks and attempted attacks of July 2005 and the pressure placed upon the Metropolitan Police in responding to the threat.
b) A failure to obtain and provide better photographic images of the suspect, Hussain Osman, for the surveillance team.
c) A failure by the police to ensure that Mr de Menezes was stopped before he reached public transport.
d) The general difficulty in providing an identification of the man under surveillance (Mr de Menezes) in the time available and in the circumstances after he had left the block at Scotia Road.
e) The innocent behaviour of Mr de Menezes which increased the suspicions of some officers.
f) The fact that the views of the surveillance officers regarding identification were not accurately communicated to the command team and the firearms officers.
g) The fact that the position of the cars containing the firearms officers was not accurately known to the command team as the firearms officers were approaching Stockwell station.
h) Any significant shortcomings in the communications system as it was operating on the day between the various police teams on the ground and with New Scotland Yard.
i) A failure to conclude, at the time, that surveillance officers should still be used to carry out the stop of Mr de Menezes at Stockwell station even after it was reported that specialist firearms officers could perform the stop.

Well, if the jury's answers are, like, "Officer C12 did not shout the words 'armed police' at the victim" (illegal), "the victim remained seated" (he was not a threat, thus unlawful) and "the victim did not move towards C12" (same as above), what the verdict could be? "Open"?

RUBBISH. It has to be "unlawful".

This is a logically flawed nonsense. Am I seeing the Bloody Sunday's Widgery Inquiry again, or what?

At the end of the day, the conclusion is "the law enforcement can never be wrong". Bullshit. F*******.

What a farce. There's no future in England's dreaming.

※この記事は

2008年12月03日

にアップロードしました。
1年も経ったころには、書いた本人の記憶から消えているかもしれません。