THE LAST DITCH
Published by Tom
on
Link: De Menezes firearms chief cries in court – Telegraph.
O.F.F.S. Are we sure he wasn’t crying with embarrassment at the way the Met continues to try to blacken the name of the innocent it killed? What on earth does the question of whether, like so many members of the British Establishment, he was a cocaine user have to do with whether his killing was justified? Can we expect to see Angus Deayton drilled with "special bullets" some time soon?
Special Bullets my a**e, they are DUM-DUM bullets outlawed by the Geneva Convention
LikeLike
I was almost sure that was right, but enough of a lawyer not to say so without being able to verify it. Are you sure, Guthrum? I am not quite sure why I should be surprised that an Executive which thinks it can create additional defences to murder without an Act of Parliament might also disregard the Geneva Convention. Why would the court cooperate in this “special bullets” fiction though?
LikeLike
Does the Geneva Convention govern the police? I thought that it governed war between nations?
LikeLike
Tom, that’s exactly what I thought when I saw the news last night: not content with killing the poor man, they are now trying to discredit him in every way possible. As you point out, the hypocrisy is incredible.
LikeLike
Tom I have posted on this- It is expressly formidden to use these bullets in military service.
‘The Hague Convention of 1899, Declaration III, prohibits the use in warfare of bullets which easily expand or flatten in the body,[1] and was an expansion of the Declaration of St Petersburg in 1868, which banned exploding projectiles of less than 400 grams. These treaties limited the use of “explosive” bullets in military use, defining illegal rounds as a jacketed bullet with an exposed lead tip (and, by implication, a jacketed base). During the Convention, representatives from Imperial Germany provided evidence of severe expansion in flesh based on analysis of British hunting (not military) rounds. This provided a competitive advantage for the newly developed German Spitzer (pointed) rounds which did not have exposed lead at the tip. The United States and Britain disagreed with the German analysis, but declined to make a significant issue of it.’
My view is that a) The Police in this instance were acting in a para-military fashion.
b) The fact they call them ‘special bullets’ is designed to obscure what they really are- dum-dum bullets.
c) The photograph of Menezes deliberatedly obscured his head, mainly because there would have been very little of it left to show. With seven bullets at close range they literally blew his head off.
When these protocols were signed, policemen did not carry heavy calibre weapons in the street, or Heckler & Koch assault automatic assault rifles.
In my opinion the Conventions should apply to para-military forces of the State.It is being obscured in the presentation in Court of a horrific State sanctioned execution of an innocent man.
LikeLike
I found this quote-
Manstopper is a generic term used to describe almost any combination of firearm and ammunition that can reliably be expected to incapacitate, or “stop” a human target immediately. For example, the .45 ACP pistol round and the .357 Magnum revolver round have a firm reputation as “manstoppers”.
Historically, one type of ammunition has had the specific nickname “Manstopper”. Officially known as the Mk III cartridge, these were made to suit the British Webley .455 service revolver in the early 20th century. The ammunition used a 220 grain cylindrical bullet with a hollow point and base to encourage expansion in flesh. It was introduced in 1898 for use against “savages,” but fell quickly from favour due to concerns of breaching new international laws on military ammunition, and was replaced in 1900 by re-issued Mk II pointed-bullet ammunition.
In the First and Second WW any soldier found with modified ammunition was not protected by the Geneva Convention and was deemed an unlawful combattant.
The term savage seems most apt.
LikeLike
I think you are being silly here chaps. The horror was how reckless the police were, how much they failed to be careful and competent in the matter of deadly force. To fret about the ammunition is daft on three counts. First, it distracts from the main business. Secondly, it leads to your having to admit that the Geneva conventions don’t apply anyway, so weakening your standing. Thirdly it invites the reply that when dealing with a supposed suicide bomber it’s vital that he be killed ASAP, before he can set his bomb off. If the Geneva conventions were not drawn up with suicide bombers in mind, so much the worse for the conventions.
LikeLike
Dearieme is correct this is silly, these ammunitions where outlawed when to incapacitate was the goal and to kill was just vindictive. I suspect if you were sat next to Mr De Menezes you would not be so in favour of exit wounds.
LikeLike
Silly- hang on Silly ! FFS, next time these incompetent idiots come rushing after you, and use ammunition that is deemed ‘uncivilised’ in mortal combat in a war zone, you are just going to say don’t be silly ! You will be dead,possibly the people around you likewise your assailants promoted, your reputation destroyed in the process in Court. All Hail the State, they have done their work well.
LikeLike
…like so many members of the British Establishment…
Naughty, Tom.
O/T – I’m typing this from the Mac and it’s weird first time. Safari is useless with Blogger so I’m trying to find Firefox. Trouble is there’s no search engine in Safari. Ho hum – we’re learning.
LikeLike
Has anybody actually considered that the details of any court case was likely to come out in any such court case? Complaining about blackening his name is rather easy when it may simply have been something always likely to be revealed in the details of the autopsy.
LikeLike
Tom is a retired international lawyer. He was a partner in a City of London law firm and spent almost twenty years abroad serving clients from all over the world.
Returning to London on retirement in 2011, he was dismayed to discover how much liberty had been lost in the UK while he was away.
He’s a classical liberal (libertarian, if you must) who, like his illustrious namesake, considers that
“…government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one.”
Receive content by email
The problem is that they already know about the blog and some read it. Why is that an issue? If…
Conversationally, I already operate on NATO “no first strike” principles. I am not going to start a political discussion with…
Why don’t you stick with what you are doing on the blogs but simply withdraw from discussion on politics with…
Thanks for your words of encouragement, gents. I don’t have a problem with political or spiritual differences and never have.…
I’m not really surprised. You live in the Leftie capital of the UK and most down there are pretty woke.…
The Last Ditch by Tom Paine 
Leave a reply to MJW Cancel reply