Open Verdict

So what are you, as a juror, supposed to return if you’re not allowed to call the shooting of an innocent electrician ‘unlawful killing’?

If you look at the basics of the case, especially from the viewpoint of Jean Charles de Menezes, it is absolutely clear that he was unlawfully killed. Someone, probably several people, somewhere is responsible for the series of mistakes which led to this innocent man’s death at the hands of the police.

Isn’t this the sort of thing that much of our justice system is supposed to prevent? Innocent people being executed without trial at the whim of the mob? In this case the mob were the very people who are supposed to provide this protection to the public at large.

I think this case reflects this new found philosophy of the assumption of guilt. We are all potential muggers, thugs, peodophiles and terrorists unless we can prove otherwise. It is unfortunately much more difficult to prove the absence of something rather than the existence of something.

It’s just another example of those responsible avoiding acountability for their actions. Bliar & Bush were wrong about Iraq and yet the only consequence of their lies and the deaths on their hands is a ride on the gravy train into retirement. The economy has been screwed by deregulation and rampant greed, but once again no one is prepared to stand up and say ‘our policies were wrong’ and take responsibility.

Don’t try this at home of course, the ability to simply say ‘I take responsibility’ and then walk off into the sunset is only gifted to politicians, business leaders, bankers and senior police officers.

Welcome to the not so brave New World!

This entry was posted in Blog and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.