Seriously? there's no "defence" argument involved in killing an unknown individual that involves lack of identity rather than a fake positive.
Yes, seriously. You said they didn't know who he was - which is effectively what they claimed when they said they thought he was someone else. I think someone knew exactly who he was.
I can assure you it does. I would imagine that being a terrorist suspect at the end of a gun sight makes it so... whatever you might chose to think.
No, you can't assure me it does. An experience you had doesn't count as evidence in this case. That's obvious and nothing to do with 'what I choose to think'; it's what you choose to think.
Yes. I would also call him guilty.
OK, but I still contend that being 'incompetent' is a non sequitur to 'lethal' and 'ruthless'.
What logic is that?
Logic that doesn't concur with your assertions that 'this is what happens when you let police who have been practicing for a year or two out on the street', which has no explanatory power relating to the facts of the case. Nor does it concur with your stated belief that CD suffered no negative consequences of overseeing a deadly bodge job because 'nothing would get in the way of her progress because as a lesbian she appealed to middle class sensibilities and therefore was earmarked for higher things'. Those positions are not based in sound logic, but opinion.
I contend that it was impossible to misidentify Jean Charles as a potential suicide bomber as he clearly had nothing (the police lied about what he was wearing); implausible to allow him to travel by bus if they really believed he might blow something up; implausible to physically grab a 'suicide bomber' in order to execute him; implausible to believe that a genuine error of identification, leading to the death of an innocent wouldn't hamper the career of the officer in charge; conversely, plausible to think the operation a success when the officer in charge not only does not suffer negative consequences, but enjoys swift promotion(s).
You can choose to believe what you like ofcourse - and you obviously have, but as the base for your position is 'she's a lesbian appealing to the middle class and therefore nothing could hamper her progress', and 'this is what happens when you let police with guns out after a couple of years of practicing', I still contend that these are very weak explanations, simplistic even, that lack reference to what actually happened (insofar as what was established at the inquest, ie the evidence).