Two nations, the same words, the same outcome.
I can't breathe. The words spoken by Eric Garner after a NYPD officer placed him in a chokehold, before he was then slammed to the ground. Within minutes he was dead. The decision by a grand jury not to indict the officer who placed him in the chokehold, coming just a week after a grand jury similarly declined to indict the officer who shot dead Michael Brown, sparking riots in Brown's hometown of Ferguson, has led to protests by sportsmen and celebrities.
I can't breathe. The words spoken by Jimmy Mubenga, after three G4S guards meant to be supervising his deportation forced him forward in his seat, despite his already being handcuffed from behind. Except, it's now difficult to know if that's what happened as the jury at the manslaughter trial brought following the unlawful killing verdict at Mubenga's inquest found all three not guilty, and within hours of their being sent out to consider their verdict.
This isn't the first time the verdict of an inquest and the subsequent manslaughter trial have differed. Most notably, an inquest jury found Ian Tomlinson had been unlawfully killed, dying not long after he was pushed to the ground by PC Simon Harwood. The jury at his trial similarly was not convinced beyond reasonable doubt he was responsible for Tomlinson's death, a decision which could be rationalised by how there was a difference of opinion between the pathologists who carried out consecutive autopsies. The first post-mortem was performed by Freddy Patel, an incompetent who was suspended at the time of the trial and has since been struck off, details the jury were not told as they were deemed prejudicial. Patel also poured away the liquid he found in Tomlinson's abdomen, which could have determined beyond doubt the cause of death.
The jury at the Mubenga trial were not told of the inquest's unlawful killing verdict, rather more understandably, nor that two of the guards had "racist" jokes on their phones. We can't of course know which parts of the evidence the jury accepted and those they didn't: the guards denied hearing Mubenga crying out that he couldn't breathe, something that passengers seated much further away on the plane did and testified they had. They also denied putting Mubenga into a position known to have the potential to cause breathing difficulties, which again witnesses testified they had. The prosecution case also included reconstructing the alleged restraint placed on Mubenga, with a section of a Boeing 777 constructed in the court, members of the jury placed in the same position as Mubenga was.
We can then only surmise at how they reached their verdict. We know juries are reluctant to convict police officers or others in positions of authority, whether they be British or American. Just last week a jury cleared two officers of attacking a man with autism in Luton, despite hearing a recording of one of the pair referring to him as a "fucking Paki" moments prior to the altercation. The jury seemingly accepted the injuries Faruk Ali sustained were due to his falling into bins when grabbed by one of the officers, not the punches claimed by Ali's family. This giving of the benefit of the doubt is perhaps explained somewhat by polls showing a healthy majority retain trust in the police, one survey finding 65% would generally trust officers to be truthful. Only teachers, doctors and judges are trusted more. Journalists and politicians rank along the bottom.
Jimmy Mubenga wasn't only black; he was also being deported following a conviction for actual bodily harm. All three of the guards found not guilty are white, the youngest 39. The jury accepted their argument they were simply "trying to do a very difficult job in difficult circumstances, to the best of their ability". You have to suspect that Mubenga, unlike Garner, will not have footballers or say, Idris Elba, donning t-shirts featuring some of his last words in protest.
I can't breathe. The words spoken by Jimmy Mubenga, after three G4S guards meant to be supervising his deportation forced him forward in his seat, despite his already being handcuffed from behind. Except, it's now difficult to know if that's what happened as the jury at the manslaughter trial brought following the unlawful killing verdict at Mubenga's inquest found all three not guilty, and within hours of their being sent out to consider their verdict.
This isn't the first time the verdict of an inquest and the subsequent manslaughter trial have differed. Most notably, an inquest jury found Ian Tomlinson had been unlawfully killed, dying not long after he was pushed to the ground by PC Simon Harwood. The jury at his trial similarly was not convinced beyond reasonable doubt he was responsible for Tomlinson's death, a decision which could be rationalised by how there was a difference of opinion between the pathologists who carried out consecutive autopsies. The first post-mortem was performed by Freddy Patel, an incompetent who was suspended at the time of the trial and has since been struck off, details the jury were not told as they were deemed prejudicial. Patel also poured away the liquid he found in Tomlinson's abdomen, which could have determined beyond doubt the cause of death.
The jury at the Mubenga trial were not told of the inquest's unlawful killing verdict, rather more understandably, nor that two of the guards had "racist" jokes on their phones. We can't of course know which parts of the evidence the jury accepted and those they didn't: the guards denied hearing Mubenga crying out that he couldn't breathe, something that passengers seated much further away on the plane did and testified they had. They also denied putting Mubenga into a position known to have the potential to cause breathing difficulties, which again witnesses testified they had. The prosecution case also included reconstructing the alleged restraint placed on Mubenga, with a section of a Boeing 777 constructed in the court, members of the jury placed in the same position as Mubenga was.
We can then only surmise at how they reached their verdict. We know juries are reluctant to convict police officers or others in positions of authority, whether they be British or American. Just last week a jury cleared two officers of attacking a man with autism in Luton, despite hearing a recording of one of the pair referring to him as a "fucking Paki" moments prior to the altercation. The jury seemingly accepted the injuries Faruk Ali sustained were due to his falling into bins when grabbed by one of the officers, not the punches claimed by Ali's family. This giving of the benefit of the doubt is perhaps explained somewhat by polls showing a healthy majority retain trust in the police, one survey finding 65% would generally trust officers to be truthful. Only teachers, doctors and judges are trusted more. Journalists and politicians rank along the bottom.
Jimmy Mubenga wasn't only black; he was also being deported following a conviction for actual bodily harm. All three of the guards found not guilty are white, the youngest 39. The jury accepted their argument they were simply "trying to do a very difficult job in difficult circumstances, to the best of their ability". You have to suspect that Mubenga, unlike Garner, will not have footballers or say, Idris Elba, donning t-shirts featuring some of his last words in protest.
Labels: deportation, Eric Garner, G4S, Ian Tomlinson, injustice, Jimmy Mubenga, politics
| Permalink
