NJ_Dave

In the age of the lawsuit, if you take away the right to sue it would destroy society altogether

fatbrit

It's a healthy part of the checks and balances in a just society. Agree that it can go too far sometimes, and I believe we both live in a great example of such a society. But it would be v. foolish to remove it totally...

ukemigrant

Maybe so but the government has always denied having a shoot-to-kill policy up to now. Search for "shoot-to-kill northern ireland" for more details.

doctor scrumpy

What is the problem with a shoot to kill policy ? Those bastards have a bomb to kill policy after all.

krizzy

The question of not being able to sue....only comes up...if..he was illegal......it would not be an issue in most cases.......

krizzy

The shoot to kill policy as far as I know was only on the UK mainland......and only to stop people like bombers etc and it was only to be use after all other means had been tried....last week was I think the only time it has been used on the UK mainland since it came in, in 1967......it was as far as I know not used in Northern Ireland........but because gun fire was used to stop cars running checkpoints in NI.... people were sometimes killed.......giving rise to the idea it was a shot to kill...and not shot to stop policy there.......

walla

can you explain that in English please?

krizzy

No........

krizzy

I also find that a racist remark seeing as English is NOT my first language..but I do try my best ... .if you find anything I say hard to understand because of this.......then please feel free to ask me to explain again.....but I find it very rude of you to ask in the way you did.....its sarcastic and uncalled for......

krizzy

There was no shoot to kill in NI......

There is on the UK mainland......

short and sweet.......easy to understand....

Franklin

Yeah yeah ... contributory negligence also applies in some states in the USA, likewise "assumption of risk doctrine" (that Jean Charles de Menezes assumed the risk of being shot by failing to heed an order to stop). That Jean Charles de Menezes may have overstayed his visa is of no consequence and will not, imho, be used in legal arguments by the Met, but may be used to lever a conclusion (as much as their can be a conclusion) to this tragic matter. History was made when Jean Charles de Menezes was shot by British Police, this is the first time use of the shoot to kill policy (re: dealing with the special case of suspect suicide bombers).

Reason #1: it is not normal practice on UK mainland to shoot someone dead who fails to heed a police warning to stop, in fact it is a highly improbable result based on historical evidence which will show that police rarely, if ever, shoot someone dead for failing to stop.

Reason #2: the Met has already admitted a tragic mistake. The Met have all but admitted total liability.

Reason #3: politics, UK/Brazil harmonious relations, for this reason alone, the PM will likely instruct the Met Police Commissioner Blair to signal that the Met will offer substantial compensation to the Jean Charles de Menezes estate, his next of kin while admitting that this can't ever adequately compensate them for their tragic loss.

walla

It was a tongue in cheek remark.

The British Army always had a shoot to kill policy in Ireland whether it was official or not.

My BIL was a Corporal in the Army in the eighties, nuff said.

Franklin

All this said, the application of the rules for dealing with suspect suicide bombers while appalling are, imho, totally necessary. The interests of the public negate the police of all criminal blame so long as the officer(s) who carried out the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes stayed within the written rules for dealing with suspect suicide bombers.

While the Police are at fault in civil terms, they are not at fault in criminal terms, so long as they stayed within the framework of the new rules.

The police here acted in good faith and with honour. Despite the appalling tragedy, we should be very proud of them and continue to give them our full support; they are literally the thin blue line, they only sought to protect us from the horror of suicide bombers.

There should be the normal enquiries following a shooting and lessons learned etc., but no disciplinary action should be visited on any Police Officer whatsoever. As it is, the Officer(s) directly involved in the shooting will have to live with their mistake for the rest of their natural lives, and perhaps then some.

krizzy

{Reason #1: it is not normal practice on UK mainland to shoot someone dead who fails to heed a police warning to stop, in fact it is a highly improbable result based on historical evidence which will show that police rarely, if ever, shoot someone dead for failing to stop.}

So if it becomes normal practice.......will people not be able to sue....or will they get less money....???

if the police have been able to shoot to kill for many years and not done so......then why does that not show this was an extreme case in difficult times......

I see your point well......but it seems that for the police to be in the right....they would have to have killed more often.....??

Sorry if that is in bad English......I get better as the day goes by.....LOL!
If I could still write in French and Spanish......I would do better.....but then again I'm sure someone would bring up the fact it was not in English....

Manc

don't want it to be normal practice...........


good morning!