An oldie but a goodie

This is a few days old but more than worth mentioning. First, the background:

On July 22, 2005, a Brazilian man named Jean Charles de Menezes got into a car on the London subway, known as the underground. He didn't leave alive.

He was shot in the head at close range by British police who thought he was a wanted terrorist who had tried to set off bombs in the underground the day before.

A coroner's inquest was held to try to determine what happened. On December 2, the presiding judge, a former High Court judge named Michael Wright, told the jurors they could not come back with a finding of unlawful killing, claiming the evidence didn't justify it. Included was this mealy-mouthed, weaselly statement:

"In directing you that you cannot return a verdict of unlawful killing, I am not saying that nothing went wrong on a police operation which resulted in the killing of an innocent man," Wright said.

But he added that a verdict of unlawful killing could only be considered if jurors could be sure that a serious crime, such as murder or manslaughter, had been committed,

a judgment he decided to make himself on the jury's behalf.

Wright said jurors could only return a verdict of lawful killing or an open verdict, meaning they reached no conclusion. They are not allowed to attach any criminal or civil fault to individuals.

Put another way, he ordered the jury to effectively acquit the police.

Or, rather, he tried to. This is the follow-up, from Friday's International Herald Tribune:

A three-month inquest ended Friday with the jury effectively rejecting police claims that a 27-year-old Brazilian electrician lawfully was shot and killed after he was mistakenly identified as a suspect in a failed subway bombing plot in July 2005.

By an 8 to 2 majority vote, the jury returned an open verdict in the case of Jean Charles de Menezes, the harshest available to them, essentially condemning the actions of two Scotland Yard firearms officers who shot the Brazilian seven times in the head aboard a crowded subway train after mistaking him for an Islamic terrorist.

Not only did jurors reach an open verdict, they included a series of what the IHT called "damning" conclusions that essentially branded the police as liars. Significantly, Scotland Yard claimed the officers involved shouted "armed police" as they entered the car where de Menezes was sitting and that in response, he

stood up and walked towards them with his arms and hands in a position "consistent with someone who may be about to detonate a bomb hidden on their person or in a belt." They said his actions left them with no option, consistent with police procedures, but to shoot de Menezes in the head.

But based on the testimony of 17 other passengers who were in the car at the time, the jurors concluded both those statements were outright false: the police did not shout "armed police" and while de Menezes did stand up, he did not move toward the cops.

His family has branded the inquest a whitewash and has filed a court appeal to overturn the ruling barring a finding of unlawful killing. Hopefully, the jurors' findings will add weight to that appeal and lead to an investigation of an official cover-up.

It's said that "the rules are different for cops" and indeed they are: If all the facts of the situation had been the same right down to the mistaken identity except that the shooter was a civilian, not the cops, would Justice Wright have decided that jurors couldn't "be sure that a serious crime, such as murder or manslaughter, had been committed?" We both know the answer to that.

The thing is, to a certain extent the rules must be different for police in order for them to do their jobs; they must have certain authorities that are denied to the rest of us. But all too often that "need to do their jobs" becomes a basis for squashing criticism and even an excuse for criminality. It's good to know that at least one panel of British citizens is prepared to stand against that.

Footnote: The Metropolitan Police (the proper name of Scotland Yard) have already been fined $850,000 for "endangering the public's safety" in the shooting.