Armed police demand to be above accountability?
Steve Walker
More than 100 Scotland Yard firearms officers have indicated they will down
their weapons in protest at the suspension of two colleagues. They say
they will not perform firearms duties after the Yard suspended two officers
who shot a man carrying a table leg which they mistook for a sawn-off
shotgun.
_____________________
I'm sympathetic to the situation of any officer (or doctor, or pilot) faced
with a split-second decision, especially when it results in the loss of
innocent life. Only a fool would imagine that the officers concerned are
not haunted by this incident.
But..... do the officers of SO19 really think they can justifiably resort
to such ugly tactics? It's tantamount to a strike, and one which
fundamentally challenges their moral claim to be the guardians of our
society during troubled times. Would these officers support the right of
doctors to decline to undertake surgery because one of their colleagues had
been suspended?
And finally, lest anyone feel I'm off on another OT ramble, what exactly do
they want to see changed about the current state of UK law? Do they really
mean that their actions must be protected by some special immunity, or that
innocent victims of accidental kills should no longer have the right of
recourse? Is there any change which could protect them without reducing
the protection of the innocent?
Periander.
news:2unrr6F...@uni-berlin.de...
>
www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=324361&
in_page_id=1770
...
> But..... do the officers of SO19 really think they can justifiably
resort
> to such ugly tactics?
Why not? When the senior ranks of all UK police forces are riddled with
incompetants more concerned with "public image" rather than "public service"
the only effective way to hurt them is to attack the image.
Two of their collegues are being set up to be scapegoats simply in order to
pander to a vocal yet minority public opinion. Baring in mind that there had
already been an inquest the second inquest smacks of "double jeapordy", how
would you feel for instance if a person found not guilty in a criminal court
was constantly re-tried until the "right" verdict was eventually found?
Furthermore when a person joins the police there's nothing above the dotted
line that says that they are agreing to carry firearms, nothing for instance
to say that they agree to drive ... for instance I know many police officers
who now refuse to drive whilst on dutyand yet there's no fuss about that.
> It's tantamount to a strike, and one which
> fundamentally challenges their moral claim to be the guardians of our
> society during troubled times.
We live in a free country (until of course we're finally broken up and
occupied by the EU) and as such the police are not the guardians of our
society, they aren't representatives of the government, they are simply
citizens with special responsibilities, truth be told the "special
responsibilities" are little different that any citizen actually has.
> Would these officers support the right of
> doctors to decline to undertake surgery because one of their colleagues
had
> been suspended?
Don't see why not, unless of course the doctors were contracted to perform
sugery/particular form of surgery.
> And finally, lest anyone feel I'm off on another OT ramble, what exactly
do
> they want to see changed about the current state of UK law? Do they
really
> mean that their actions must be protected by some special immunity, or
that
> innocent victims of accidental kills should no longer have the right of
> recourse? Is there any change which could protect them without reducing
> the protection of the innocent?
--
regards or otherwise,
Periander
Lansbury
>But..... do the officers of SO19 really think they can justifiably resort
>to such ugly tactics?
There is no requirement to carry a firearm or be trained to do so. It is
voluntary.
It is a pity that those officers outside of SO19, especially those employed on
protection duties, are not making the same stand.
There is a difference in my mind between a deliberate act to shoot someone out
of malice and that of someone doing so in the believed defence of their own
life (even if that belief subsequently proves to be mistaken).
The verdict of the second inquest jury to me implies that what are supposed to
be ordinary intelligent members of the public have stated that a police
officer may only use their weapon if 100% certain that they are in danger and
can prove it afterwards.
If that is so I hope every armed officer in the UK exercises their right to
decline to carry a firearm as the public has demonstrated by that verdict it
doesn't deserved them taking the risk to their live and freedom that carrying
one would entail.
-
Lansbury
www.uk-air.net
FAQs for the alt.travel.uk.air newsgroup
bigbrian
wrote:
>On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 23:00:23 +0000, "Steve Walker" <spam...@beeb.net> wrote:
>
>>But..... do the officers of SO19 really think they can justifiably resort
>>to such ugly tactics?
>
>There is no requirement to carry a firearm or be trained to do so. It is
>voluntary.
>
>It is a pity that those officers outside of SO19, especially those employed on
>protection duties, are not making the same stand.
>
>There is a difference in my mind between a deliberate act to shoot someone out
>of malice and that of someone doing so in the believed defence of their own
>life (even if that belief subsequently proves to be mistaken).
>
>The verdict of the second inquest jury to me implies that what are supposed to
>be ordinary intelligent members of the public have stated that a police
>officer may only use their weapon if 100% certain that they are in danger and
>can prove it afterwards.
It doesn't matter how many times I read that, I can't find anything
wrong with it. It sounds entirely reasonable.
Even if you disagree with the reasoning, there's a gaping difference
between being 100% certain that you're in danger, and responding with
firearms on the basis solely of one anonymous, uncorroborated claim
from someone in a pub, without even apparently considering the
possibility that the claim is wrong, or malicious, or taking any steps
whatsoever to verify its accuracy before setting up an armed position
in the street.
And, while I don't have specialist police firearms training, I would
suggest that if, as a trained firearms officer, with a high powered
rifle in your hands, you feel that you're in danger from someone
holding a shotgun, let alone a table leg, then you've either chosen to
set up your position too close to him, or haven't given yourself
enough cover. Given that the time and place of the shooting was driven
entirely by the police, there should have been no realistic likelihood
of them being in any real danger.
Brian
Rob
|| "Steve Walker" <spam...@beeb.net> wrote in message
|| news:2unrr6F...@uni-berlin.de...
|||
||
www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=324361&
|| in_page_id=1770
|| ...
||
||| But..... do the officers of SO19 really think they can
||| justifiably resort to such ugly tactics?
||
|| Why not? When the senior ranks of all UK police forces are riddled
|| with incompetants more concerned with "public image" rather than
|| "public service" the only effective way to hurt them is to attack
|| the image.
||
|| Two of their collegues are being set up to be scapegoats simply in
|| order to pander to a vocal yet minority public opinion. Baring in
|| mind that there had already been an inquest the second inquest
|| smacks of "double jeapordy", how would you feel for instance if a
|| person found not guilty in a criminal court was constantly re-tried
|| until the "right" verdict was eventually found?
In the criminal court analogy you suggest, if the judge had ruled out
guilty, leaving only not guilty for the jury to find, then yes one would
have a right to complain. The original inquest was barred from finding
unlawful killing, but the resulting open verdict left no doubt that
accidental death was rejected.
If the first inquest hadn't been so flawed, then there would be no need for
a second, and your double jeapordy claim might have some merit.
--
Rob
Palindr☻me
Although I did voice the same sentiments and feel the same
unease, I don't have any knowledge of the constraints that
were acting upon the officers at the time.
Did they have to act quickly, before the "armed man" entered
an area with lots of people on the street or where he could
not be contained easily with just two officers?
Did they have to get closer than they would have wanted,
because of parked (perhaps large) vehicles, trees, bend in
the road, traffic density, whatever?
Was there simply no cover available? How dark was it? Were
the street lights working?
I do hope that some or all of the above apply and that this
simply was the officers concerned doing the best they could
under the circumstances that existed at the time.
--
Sue
Lansbury
>>The verdict of the second inquest jury to me implies that what are supposed to
>>be ordinary intelligent members of the public have stated that a police
>>officer may only use their weapon if 100% certain that they are in danger and
>>can prove it afterwards.
>
>It doesn't matter how many times I read that, I can't find anything
>wrong with it. It sounds entirely reasonable.
Indeed the public may make what rules they like under which police have to
offer. However in practice the law requires that if you have a reasonably held
belief that your life is in danger you may act to defend it even if later the
circumstances you believed to be in existence were in fact not so.
My point was that now an inquest jury appears to have changed that to you must
be 100% right, police officers who volunteered to carry firearms are perfectly
at liberty to now refuse to do so as the circumstance under which they can be
held to account appear to have changed.
bigbrian
wrote:
>On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 11:30:15 +0000, bigbrian <harr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>The verdict of the second inquest jury to me implies that what are supposed to
>>>be ordinary intelligent members of the public have stated that a police
>>>officer may only use their weapon if 100% certain that they are in danger and
>>>can prove it afterwards.
>>
>>It doesn't matter how many times I read that, I can't find anything
>>wrong with it. It sounds entirely reasonable.
>
>Indeed the public may make what rules they like under which police have to
>offer. However in practice the law requires that if you have a reasonably held
>belief that your life is in danger you may act to defend it even if later the
>circumstances you believed to be in existence were in fact not so.
Yes, but I'm not a specially trained firearms expert, There's no
reason why a higher standard shouldn't be demanded of trained
firearms professionals than of householders disturbed by burglars in
the night.
>My point was that now an inquest jury appears to have changed that to you must
>be 100% right
No they haven't. They're recognising that discharging a firearm in a
circumstance of your own engineering, should be a matter of last
resort. And in this case, not enough was done to prevent it from being
necessary.
Brian
IanAl
<bigb...@4rubbish.britwar.co.uk> wrote:
>Furthermore when a person joins the police there's nothing above the dotted
>line that says that they are agreing to carry firearms,
OK let's take away all their guns.
> nothing for instance
>to say that they agree to drive ... for instance I know many police officers
>who now refuse to drive whilst on dutyand yet there's no fuss about that.
..and put them on bicycles. How fit are you, Periander?
>> Would these officers support the right of
>> doctors to decline to undertake surgery because one of their colleagues
>>had been suspended?
>
>Don't see why not, unless of course the doctors were contracted to perform
>surgery/particular form of surgery.
Well there used to be a Hippocratic Oath. But then there used to be
professional integrity.
Would you really risk having all the surgeons on strike?
Periander.
news:mnteo0pnl94enh1hj...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 11:30:15 +0000, bigbrian <harr...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
> >>The verdict of the second inquest jury to me implies that what are
supposed to
> >>be ordinary intelligent members of the public have stated that a police
> >>officer may only use their weapon if 100% certain that they are in
danger and
> >>can prove it afterwards.
> >
> >It doesn't matter how many times I read that, I can't find anything
> >wrong with it. It sounds entirely reasonable.
> My point was that now an inquest jury appears to have changed that to you
must
More importantly such a change doesn't simply effect police officers, it
effects every single one of us as it effects the fundamental principles on
which the laws (statute and common) relating to the prevention of crime and
self defence.
Periander.
news:cm7ror$22n$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
> Periander. wrote:
...
> || Two of their collegues are being set up to be scapegoats simply in
> || order to pander to a vocal yet minority public opinion. Baring in
> || mind that there had already been an inquest the second inquest
> || smacks of "double jeapordy", how would you feel for instance if a
> || person found not guilty in a criminal court was constantly re-tried
> || until the "right" verdict was eventually found?
>
> In the criminal court analogy you suggest, if the judge had ruled out
> guilty, leaving only not guilty for the jury to find, then yes one would
> have a right to complain. The original inquest was barred from finding
> unlawful killing,
Sorry but I fail to see any significant difference between a judge ruling
that a verdict of guilty is not permissable and a coroner ordering that a
verdict of unlawfull killing is not permissable. Both teh judge and the
coroner are well versed in law, both have the established right - duty even
to make such a ruling when they believe it is right to do so.
bigbrian
But the point is that the Coroner was actually wrong to do so, hence
the inquest verdict was overturned by the High Court. The original
coroner was wrong on a number of fronts, including flying in the face
of the Court of Appeal following the Tony Martin case, and in allowing
Harry Stanley's previous convictions, which couldn't possibly have had
any relevance to this proceedings, to be read out to the jury in an
attempt to exonerate the police
Brian
Alasdair Baxter
<bigb...@4rubbish.britwar.co.uk> wrote:
> Both teh judge and the
>coroner are well versed in law
You don't *have* to be a lawyer to be a coroner. Being a doctor will
do.
--
Alasdair Baxter, Nottingham, UK.Tel +44 115 9705100; Fax +44 115 9423263
"It's not what you say that matters but how you say it.
It's not what you do that matters but how you do it"
Lansbury
<bigb...@4rubbish.britwar.co.uk> wrote:
>> My point was that now an inquest jury appears to have changed that to you
>must
>> be 100% right, ...
>
>More importantly such a change doesn't simply effect police officers, it
>effects every single one of us as it effects the fundamental principles on
>which the laws (statute and common) relating to the prevention of crime and
>self defence.
Yes I nearly included a similar statement in my last post
Lansbury
>Yes, but I'm not a specially trained firearms expert, There's no
>reason why a higher standard shouldn't be demanded of trained
>firearms professionals than of householders disturbed by burglars in
>the night.
No the same standard should apply to everyone as we are all equal under the
law.
What you might expect it that a police officer would require a higher level of
threat against them before they were put in fear than would a person who does
not normally face the risks they do.
Trained or not looking down the wrong end of a firearm is a very frightening
experience, and being in a situation where you believe someone is holding a
firearm, even if you can't see it, and it is pointing at you is just as
frightening and threatening.
bigbrian
wrote:
>On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 12:45:09 +0000, bigbrian <harr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Yes, but I'm not a specially trained firearms expert, There's no
>>reason why a higher standard shouldn't be demanded of trained
>>firearms professionals than of householders disturbed by burglars in
>>the night.
>
>No the same standard should apply to everyone as we are all equal under the
>law.
No we're not. last time I looked the police had a number of powers
which I don't.. It's entirely appropriate to hold them to a higher
standard in the use of those powers.
Brian
Mike
<lans...@spamcop.net> writes
>On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 11:30:15 +0000, bigbrian <harr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>It doesn't matter how many times I read that, I can't find anything
>>wrong with it. It sounds entirely reasonable.
>
>Indeed the public may make what rules they like under which police have to
>offer. However in practice the law requires that if you have a reasonably held
>belief that your life is in danger you may act to defend it even if later the
>circumstances you believed to be in existence were in fact not so.
>
didn't believe the police officers claim that they thought their lives
were in danger.
>My point was that now an inquest jury appears to have changed that to you must
>be 100% right, police officers who volunteered to carry firearms are perfectly
>at liberty to now refuse to do so as the circumstance under which they can be
>held to account appear to have changed.
>
Taking a person's life is a very serious step. It's quite right that
anyone who does so should be called to account.
--
Mike
Periander.
news:8q4fo05uko9f2g6f4...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 12:55:09 +0000, "Periander."
> <bigb...@4rubbish.britwar.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Both teh judge and the
> >coroner are well versed in law
>
> You don't *have* to be a lawyer to be a coroner. Being a doctor will
> do.
Ably assisted by his or her clerk, the situation is analogous to magistrates
courts.
TimB
> to such ugly tactics? It's tantamount to a strike, and one which
> fundamentally challenges their moral claim to be the guardians of our
> society during troubled times. Would these officers support the right of
> doctors to decline to undertake surgery because one of their colleagues had
> been suspended?
>
> And finally, lest anyone feel I'm off on another OT ramble, what exactly do
> they want to see changed about the current state of UK law? Do they really
> mean that their actions must be protected by some special immunity, or that
> innocent victims of accidental kills should no longer have the right of
> recourse? Is there any change which could protect them without reducing
> the protection of the innocent?
I don't think it's a question of being 'above accountability'. The
impression I got from the media is that they want their position
clarifying - i.e. when they are clear to open fire.
My own view is that armed police are there to provide lethal force.
Therefore, they should only be despatched when lethal force has been
identified as a reasonable course of action. If lethal force isn't
reasonable, why are they there?
If they are deployed, and it later transpires that lethal force was
overkill, the only person who should be held accountable is the person
who authorised their deployment in the first place.
Had that been the case here, I don't believe anyone would currently be
guilty. The person who requested armed officers had a real and
reasonable belief that they were necessary, based on the information
he had. The armed officers attend with the understanding that this is
a potentially lethal situation, and therefore it can be expected that
they will respond to a threat, or even a threat of a threat, with
lethal force. That's what they do. In this case, everyone did their
job, and the result is a tragic accident.
Or don't we have accidents anymore?
Periander.
news:smdfo0trpgplrs20u...@4ax.com...
With respect Brian you're confusing rights with powers, the fact that
certain groups have differing or increased powers compared to others doesn't
effect the basic rights we all share.
Lansbury
>No we're not. last time I looked the police had a number of powers
>which I don't.. It's entirely appropriate to hold them to a higher
>standard in the use of those powers.
No the powers to use force to protect themselves are exactly those that any
person in this country has.
Richard Miller
<spam...@beeb.net> writes
>And finally, lest anyone feel I'm off on another OT ramble, what
>exactly do they want to see changed about the current state of UK law?
>Do they really mean that their actions must be protected by some
>special immunity, or that innocent victims of accidental kills should
>no longer have the right of recourse? Is there any change which
>could protect them without reducing the protection of the innocent?
There is no change that could reasonably be brought in, because it would
compromise the right to life of the innocent victims under the HRA.
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
<bigb...@4rubbish.britwar.co.uk> writes
>Two of their collegues are being set up to be scapegoats simply in
>order to pander to a vocal yet minority public opinion. Baring in mind
>that there had already been an inquest the second inquest smacks of
>"double jeapordy", how would you feel for instance if a person found
>not guilty in a criminal court was constantly re-tried until the
>"right" verdict was eventually found?
Shall we ask Michael Stone?
Your argument is tantamount to saying that the Court of Appeal should
never have the right to order a re-trial.
And I do not believe that it is a minority of people in this country who
believe that killers of innocent people should be answerable in a Court
of Law.
--
Richard Miller
Derek Hornby
> Why not? When the senior ranks of all UK police forces are riddled with
> incompetants more concerned with "public image" rather than "public service"
> the only effective way to hurt them is to attack the image.
From BBC new website, the question is have the police forgotten their
legal responsibilities under their employment contracts?
More police join firearms protest
More than 120 firearms officers in London are refusing to carry guns after two
colleagues were suspended over a shooting, police representatives claim.
Harry Stanley, 46, was shot dead in 1999 after police mistook a table leg he
was carrying for a shotgun.
An inquest on Friday returned a verdict of unlawful killing and Pc Kevin Fagan
and Insp Neil Sharman were suspended.
Mr Stanley's widow, Irene, says other officers should go back to work as the
verdict "has nothing to do" with them.
She told BBC News: "They weren't there. It was to do with the two officers who
got off with the killing."
Sir John Stevens, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, has taken personal
control of negotiations in the dispute.
He said he had great "sympathy" for the protesting officers, but "they must
come back to work".
On Monday, at least 20 of the Met's 400-strong SO19 specialist firearms unit
handed in their cards authorising them to carry weapons.
The Metropolitan Police Federation (MPF), which represents officers, said that
by Tuesday over 120 firearms officers had handed back their authorisation
to carry weapons.
The body also said there were no specialist firearms officers on duty in
London on Tuesday.
Scotland Yard would not confirm the numbers involved in the protest but said
the level of armed cover in London was "unaffected".
After the inquest - the second into Mr Stanley's death - the Crown Prosecution
Service, which had previously ruled out bringing charges, said it would review
the case.
How can the level of armed cover remain unaffected if the police hand in
their weapons?
Glen Smyth, chairman of the MPF, said the case had thrown into doubt all
training and guidance given to firearms officers.
He told the BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "The officers are very concerned
that the tactics they are trained in, as a consequence of the verdict, are
now in doubt.
"They want some clarity around what they are expected to do."
The Stanley family's solicitor Daniel Machover told Today the jury "did not
believe the officers when they said they felt under imminent threat".
And he later accused the protesting officers of "misunderstanding what the
inquest was about".
He said the jury's decision was not a "broad attack" on the tactics of
firearms police, just that they did not accept that the two officers had acted
in self-defence.
Mr Smyth said he would consider mounting a legal challenge to the inquest's
verdict.
Jan Berry, chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales, said she
was not surprised by the officers' reaction.
She said: "With the benefit of hindsight we can all say what we may have done
but these two officers were required to make a split-second assessment and
decision."
Mr Stanley's widow Irene campaigned for the second inquest
Mr Stanley, a father-of-three, was shot as he left a pub in Hackney, east
London, carrying a table leg which had just been repaired by his brother.
The two officers fired the shots after mistakenly being informed that Mr
Stanley - a Scottish painter and decorator who lived in London - was an
Irishman with a sawn-off shotgun.
The Stanley family, originally from Lanarkshire, won a ruling in the High
Court in April this year to have an open verdict from his first inquest quashed.
In a statement on Friday the Met said the death of Mr Stanley was regrettable
and offered sympathy to his family.
bigbrian
wrote:
>On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 16:40:15 +0000, bigbrian <harr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>No we're not. last time I looked the police had a number of powers
>>which I don't.. It's entirely appropriate to hold them to a higher
>>standard in the use of those powers.
>
>No the powers to use force to protect themselves are exactly those that any
>person in this country has.
I don't have the power to walk the street toting a sniper rifle.
There's nothing wrong with calling people who do have that right to
account when the exercise of that right results in the death of an
innocent party.
Brian
bigbrian
I'm not confusing them at all, I'm pointing out that being granted
powers that others don't have brings additional responsibility in the
exercise of those powers, or you leave yourself open to total abuse of
the system
Brian
Richard Miller
<lans...@spamcop.net> writes
>The verdict of the second inquest jury to me implies that what are
>supposed to be ordinary intelligent members of the public have stated
>that a police officer may only use their weapon if 100% certain that
>they are in danger and can prove it afterwards.
>
To me it means that officers will be considered grossly negligent if
they place themselves in a position where a natural reaction from an
unarmed member of the public causes them to feel they have no
alternative but to shoot him dead; and that they will be called to
account. They only had to defend themselves because they deliberately
chose to put themselves in what would have been harm's way had he been
armed.
>If that is so I hope every armed officer in the UK exercises their
>right to decline to carry a firearm as the public has demonstrated by
>that verdict it doesn't deserved them taking the risk to their live and
>freedom that carrying one would entail.
Let us suppose, just for a minute, that your interpretation of the
inquest jury's verdict is right, and not the hyperbolic rubbish that I
believe it to be.
What is the consequence for the officers concerned?
Answer: nothing. Nada. Zilch. Bugger all.
Nothing at all will happen unless, which is highly unlikely, their own
superiors institute disciplinary action against them or the CPS decides
to prosecute. Neither is mandatory in the light of the inquest verdict.
I consider that to be a shame, but it is the truth of the current
system.
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
<stok...@gmail.com> writes
>Had that been the case here, I don't believe anyone would currently be
>guilty. The person who requested armed officers had a real and
>reasonable belief that they were necessary, based on the information he
>had. The armed officers attend with the understanding that this is a
>potentially lethal situation, and therefore it can be expected that
>they will respond to a threat, or even a threat of a threat, with
>lethal force. That's what they do. In this case, everyone did their
>job, and the result is a tragic accident.
>
>Or don't we have accidents anymore?
Not of this nature, no.
What we have from my perspective is a member of the public who was no
threat to anyone and who had done nothing to call attention to himself
being gunned down. If the system is right and the people are operating
it properly, then quite simply that should be completely impossible.
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
<harr...@hotmail.com> writes
Indeed. Just because they are carrying firearms, they do not have any
greater right than thee or me to use lethal force in self-defence.
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
>you must be 100% right, police officers who volunteered to carry
>firearms are perfectly at liberty to now refuse to do so as the
>circumstance under which they can be held to account appear to have
>changed.
Or perhaps they just decided that given the facts, it was grossly
unreasonable to assume that Harry Stanley posed any danger. Which to my
mind it clearly was.
--
Richard Miller
Paul Robson
> On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 12:55:12 +0000, "Periander."
> <bigb...@4rubbish.britwar.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> My point was that now an inquest jury appears to have changed that to
>>> you
>>must
>>> be 100% right, ...
>>
>>More importantly such a change doesn't simply effect police officers, it
>>effects every single one of us as it effects the fundamental principles on
>>which the laws (statute and common) relating to the prevention of crime
>>and self defence.
>
> Yes I nearly included a similar statement in my last post
And the Police have been doing this to Care workers for years, so it's nice
to see them getting a taste of their own medicine !
Paul Robson
> Two of their collegues are being set up to be scapegoats simply in order
> to pander to a vocal yet minority public opinion. Baring in mind that
> there had already been an inquest the second inquest smacks of "double
> jeapordy", how would you feel for instance if a person found not guilty in
> a criminal court was constantly re-tried until the "right" verdict was
> eventually found?
I suppose if at the first trial the judge forbade the option of them being
"guilty" then it might be justified.
Mike
<ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> writes
>What is the consequence for the officers concerned?
>
>Answer: nothing. Nada. Zilch. Bugger all.
>
>Nothing at all will happen unless, which is highly unlikely, their own
>superiors institute disciplinary action against them or the CPS decides
>to prosecute. Neither is mandatory in the light of the inquest verdict.
>I consider that to be a shame, but it is the truth of the current
>system.
We have laws in this country which allow for the prosecution of UK
citizens for certain acts done abroad. The justification for this AIUI
is that if the foreign power won't enforce its laws, then we'll do it
for them. It's rather hypocritical for the UK authorities to choose to
ignore a serious crime committed by people in public office.
--
Mike
Mike
<auti...@autismuk.muralichucks.freeserve.co.uk> writes
same as a criminal trial. The "open verdict" returned by the first
inquest jury was a non-verdict (IMO) which was just a way of them saying
"we don't know but it wasn't justifiable homicide" (the only other
verdict open to them). ISTM the "open verdict" is more analogous to a
hung jury than a finding of "not guilty".
--
Mike
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
In a perfect world, yes. But real life isn't perfect, and sometimes
things happen which can only be seen to be wrong with the benefit of
hindsight.
In this kind of situation, it is impossible for the police to be
totally certain that they have made the correct decision before
opening fire. That's "impossible" in the absolute, physical sense, not
simply difficult or unlikely. Human reaction times are such that a
person holding a gun can turn and fire it (eg, towards a police
officer or bystander) before anyone watching - even a trained SO19
officer with a rifle trained on the suspect - has time to wait and see
that there really is a gun there before the suspect shoots. The police
decision will be made on the basis of what the suspect does before
they have time to see if he really is carrying a gun - that is, by
watching his actions to see if he behaves in a manner consistent with
carrying a gun and intending to use it. But this can't be 100%
accurate - there will always be times when they make the wrong call.
Sometimes this allows the suspect time to fire a shot (and possibly
kill someone) before the police respond. Sometimes it means that the
police shoot someone when there was no actual need to do so.
In this case, the officers present at the incident itself had been
sent there by their senior officers, who believed that a man was
carrying a gun. The SO19 team wouldn't have been there unless this was
the case. So they were already in a situation where they had strong
reason to believe that Harry Stanley had a gun. When they challenged
him, he responded in a manner which supported their belief - so they
shot him. We now know that he wasn't carrying a gun. But the officers
present didn't know that - and had no way they could have known that,
or discovered it, in the time they had available in which to make
their decision about whether to shoot him or not.
They made the wrong decision, yes. But it was not a culpable mistake -
they simply made the wrong call on a matter of pure chance. Had it
gone the other way, and they hadn't fired at a man who was carrying a
gun and was prepared to use it, we would have the opposite criticism
that the police didn't protect the public.
Mark
--
--> http://www.FridayFun.net - jokes, games and ringtones! <--
"L'amore giunger, l'amore"
Anon.
"TimB" <stok...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c7c19a01.04110...@posting.google.com...
The police don't allow anyone else to "have an accident" so why should they
be allowed to. For example, if you kill someone whilst driving your car, you
are likely to be prosecuted and jailed, even though it was an accident and
you didn't mean it.
Richard Miller
Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> writes
>In this kind of situation, it is impossible for the police to be
>totally certain that they have made the correct decision before opening
>fire. That's "impossible" in the absolute, physical sense, not simply
>difficult or unlikely. Human reaction times are such that a person
>holding a gun can turn and fire it (eg, towards a police officer or
>bystander) before anyone watching - even a trained SO19 officer with a
>rifle trained on the suspect - has time to wait and see that there
>really is a gun there before the suspect shoots.
In that case, the police officers are in the wrong place and handling
the matter wrongly.
> The police decision will be made on the basis of what the suspect does
>before they have time to see if he really is carrying a gun - that is,
>by watching his actions to see if he behaves in a manner consistent
>with carrying a gun and intending to use it. But this can't be 100%
>accurate - there will always be times when they make the wrong call.
>Sometimes this allows the suspect time to fire a shot (and possibly
>kill someone) before the police respond. Sometimes it means that the
>police shoot someone when there was no actual need to do so.
In this case, there was no reliable basis to assume that Harry Stanley
was armed. There was therefore no justification for using lethal force.
End of story.
>
>In this case, the officers present at the incident itself had been sent
>there by their senior officers, who believed that a man was carrying a
>gun.
Did they really believe that? If so, why?
All they should have believed was that they had had a report from an
anonymous source that a man may be carrying a gun. That information
should have been treated as inherently unreliable, and not to be acted
upon unless and until confirmed.
> The SO19 team wouldn't have been there unless this was the case. So
>they were already in a situation where they had strong reason to
>believe that Harry Stanley had a gun.
I fundamentally disagree.
> When they challenged him, he responded in a manner which supported
>their belief -
Which was also how any innocent member of the public would respond in
the circumstances.
> so they shot him.
Not good enough. There was no reason to shoot him.
>We now know that he wasn't carrying a gun. But the officers present
>didn't know that - and had no way they could have known that, or
>discovered it, in the time they had available in which to make their
>decision about whether to shoot him or not.
They had absolutely no grounds, justification or excuse for believing
that he was armed.
>
>They made the wrong decision, yes. But it was not a culpable mistake -
It most certainly was.
>they simply made the wrong call on a matter of pure chance. Had it gone
>the other way, and they hadn't fired at a man who was carrying a gun
>and was prepared to use it, we would have the opposite criticism that
>the police didn't protect the public.
Few gunmen when challenged will shoot randomly at members of the public.
They may shoot at the police, which is why they should be in a position
from which they can withstand such fire and return it *should the need
arise* without having to pre-emptively kill someone who may, and in this
case did, turn out to be entirely innocent.
Forgive me if I can't write off the deliberate killing by police of a
wholly innocent member of the public as a mere accident of no note.
--
Richard Miller
Harry The Horse
in_page_id=1770
>
> But..... do the officers of SO19 really think they can justifiably
resort
> to such ugly tactics? It's tantamount to a strike, and one which
> fundamentally challenges their moral claim to be the guardians of our
> society during troubled times. Would these officers support the right
of
> doctors to decline to undertake surgery because one of their colleagues
had
> been suspended?
>
Stanley, and those questions are not going to be answered unless there is a
trial of these two officers. Are the rules of engagement correct? Did the
officers position themselves in such a way that an innocent reaction from Mr
Stanley resulted in their feeling that had to shoot? If so, did they act
negligently? These are all reasonable questions that must be answered to
ensure justice for Mr Stanley and to ensure that mistakes like these do not
happen again. It is not acceptable to say that 'accidents happen'. Would
we find that response acceptable if a person had been killed in a train
crash? No, so why should we accept it in this case.
I am disgusted by the tactics of some met police. Effectively they are
saying that they shouldn't be held to account, that the questions shouldn't
be asked. I am reminded that they threw a fit back in 1983 when armed
police shot down Stephen Waldorf. Interesting the Commissioner said that he
sympathy for officers actions. I think it might be more appropriate if
showed some more care about getting to the bottom of what went wrong. And
that's unlikely to happen without a trial.
bigbrian
The police's biggest mistake was made well before that. They deployed
an armed response unit in response to a single, anonymous,
uncorroborated report from a pub that someone was carrying a sawn off
shotgun. (If I make an anonymous, uncorroborated report from a pub to
the effect that you're holding someone hostage in your house, is it
OK by you if the police come and smash your door in in the middle of
the night?).
Then having deployed that armed response unit, they took no additional
steps to verify that the report was correct before bringing the armed
response unit into action in the street.
> that is, by
>watching his actions to see if he behaves in a manner consistent with
>carrying a gun and intending to use it.
Whilst completely ignoring any idea of watching his actions to see if
he behaves in a manner consistent with someone who doesn't have the
faintest clue what is happening around him. In short, they failed to
look for any idea, or consider, that he was behaving in a manner
consistent with that of an innocent mam
> But this can't be 100%
>accurate - there will always be times when they make the wrong call.
>Sometimes this allows the suspect time to fire a shot (and possibly
>kill someone) before the police respond. Sometimes it means that the
>police shoot someone when there was no actual need to do so.
>
>In this case, the officers present at the incident itself had been
>sent there by their senior officers, who believed that a man was
>carrying a gun.
What steps did they take, before confronting (from the rear) the
alleged perpetrator to verify that the allegation was accurate, or
eliminate the possibility that it was a hoax?
>The SO19 team wouldn't have been there unless this was
>the case. So they were already in a situation where they had strong
>reason to believe that Harry Stanley had a gun.
"a single, anonymous, uncorroborated report from a pub that someone
was carrying a sawn off shotgun" does not, and should never, amount
to "a strong reason to believe that Harry Stanley had a gun". If it
does, then you or I, or anyone else who could be the victim of a
malicious hoax, could be next.
>When they challenged
>him, he responded in a manner which supported their belief
When they challenged him, he responded in a manner which any innocent
part would have done - the failing of the police officers, and the
reason why they chould be charged, was in having already gone past the
point where they could have understood this.
> - so they shot him. We now know that he wasn't carrying a gun. But the officers
>present didn't know that - and had no way they could have known that,
Rubbish. They took no steps whatsoever before challenging him to
verify the authenticity or accuracy of the allegation. In short, the
allegation was the only they reason they had to believe that he *was*
carrying a gun. It has to take more than that to justify killing
people.There was no violence in the area, there was no evidence of
anyone being harmed, there were no claims, even from the anonymous
caller, that a maniac was on the loose shooting the place up. The
only claim was that there was a man in a pub carrying a gun. Even if
he *had* been carrying a shotgun, they had no obvious reason to shoot
him dead.
Brian
Anon.
"Steve Walker" <spam...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:2unrr6F...@uni-berlin.de...
>
www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=324361&
in_page_id=1770
>
down
> their weapons in protest at the suspension of two colleagues. They say
> they will not perform firearms duties after the Yard suspended two
officers
> who shot a man carrying a table leg which they mistook for a sawn-off
> shotgun.
> _____________________
>
> I'm sympathetic to the situation of any officer (or doctor, or pilot)
faced
> with a split-second decision, especially when it results in the loss of
> innocent life. Only a fool would imagine that the officers concerned are
> not haunted by this incident.
>
> But..... do the officers of SO19 really think they can justifiably
resort
> to such ugly tactics? It's tantamount to a strike, and one which
> fundamentally challenges their moral claim to be the guardians of our
> society during troubled times. Would these officers support the right
of
> doctors to decline to undertake surgery because one of their colleagues
had
> been suspended?
>
do
> they want to see changed about the current state of UK law? Do they
really
> mean that their actions must be protected by some special immunity, or
that
> innocent victims of accidental kills should no longer have the right of
> recourse? Is there any change which could protect them without reducing
> the protection of the innocent?
Two doctors in my part of the world were recently convicted (and jailed, I
think) for manslaughter because they screwed up an operation. Presumably the
police involved in that case lost no sleep over it. But the doctors were
just doing their job.......
Jonathan Bryce
> My own view is that armed police are there to provide lethal force.
> Therefore, they should only be despatched when lethal force has been
> identified as a reasonable course of action. If lethal force isn't
> reasonable, why are they there?
>
> If they are deployed, and it later transpires that lethal force was
> overkill, the only person who should be held accountable is the person
> who authorised their deployment in the first place.
They could be deployed because whoever is in charge thinks that lethal force
might be necessary. By the time it actually is, there may not be enough
time to get them in.
It is reasonable to expect qualified police officers to be able to assess
the situation themselves and determine what sort of force, if any, they
need to use.
Periander.
news:cm8hdl$qd$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
> "Periander." <bigb...@4rubbish.britwar.co.uk> wrote
>
>
>
> > Why not? When the senior ranks of all UK police forces are riddled with
> > incompetants more concerned with "public image" rather than "public
service"
> > the only effective way to hurt them is to attack the image.
>
>
> From BBC new website, the question is have the police forgotten their
> legal responsibilities under their employment contracts?
No, police officers don't employment contracts and just to put your mind at
ease there is nothing in their attestation that says that they are obliged
to carry guns, drive cars or anything else silly like that. As far as their
legal status goes well from the youngest probationer to the oldest chief
constable they are one and all holders of an independent office and cannot
be ordered by anyone from the local councillor to HM herself (gor bless 'er)
to fulfil their duties in any particular way. If you can hold on a day or so
I'm actually preparing a reply to Richard with regards to an old debate we
occasionally comment on and all shall be made clear.
Periander.
news:b$8+AJJdx...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...
> In message <2unvi4F...@uni-berlin.de>, Periander.
> <bigb...@4rubbish.britwar.co.uk> writes
> >Two of their collegues are being set up to be scapegoats simply in
> >order to pander to a vocal yet minority public opinion. Baring in mind
> >that there had already been an inquest the second inquest smacks of
> >"double jeapordy", how would you feel for instance if a person found
> >not guilty in a criminal court was constantly re-tried until the
> >"right" verdict was eventually found?
>
> Shall we ask Michael Stone?
>
> Your argument is tantamount to saying that the Court of Appeal should
> never have the right to order a re-trial.
The CoA cannot order the re-trial a person previously found NG
> And I do not believe that it is a minority of people in this country who
> believe that killers of innocent people should be answerable in a Court
> of Law.
I have to grant you that, however I have to point out that lots of
"innocent" people are killed every week and in many cases the only answer
that can be given is "life's a bitch", I have to say that I regard this case
as failing within that category. To me the whole argument smacks of double
standards, for instance one thing that those who argue that these officers
should be scapegoated never mention is what they believe the officers to
have been thinking at the time they shot the chap. For my part I believe
that they had the necessary honestly held belief and I have seen no serious
suggestion that others think otherwise. You and I both know that providing
that the accused person have an honestly held belief this in itself without
reference to anything else is in effect an absolute defence in law.
Periander.
> On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 16:45:14 +0000, Lansbury <lans...@spamcop.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 16:40:15 +0000, bigbrian <harr...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> >
> >>No we're not. last time I looked the police had a number of powers
> >>which I don't.. It's entirely appropriate to hold them to a higher
> >>standard in the use of those powers.
> >
> >No the powers to use force to protect themselves are exactly those that
any
> >person in this country has.
>
> I don't have the power to walk the street toting a sniper rifle.
Actually you probably have but toi debate this point would send the whole
thread hopelessly off topic,
Periander.
> >With respect Brian you're confusing rights with powers, the fact that
> >certain groups have differing or increased powers compared to others
doesn't
> >effect the basic rights we all share.
>
> I'm not confusing them at all, I'm pointing out that being granted
> powers that others don't have brings additional responsibility in the
> exercise of those powers, or you leave yourself open to total abuse of
> the system
Police have no more rights than anyone else in the use of force, well OK
apart from in relation to some PACE actions but these are entirely separate
from the powers relied on to use force to arrest/prevent crime/defend a
person.
Fat Freddy's Cat
>
> There are real questions that need to be answered over the killing of Harry
> Stanley, and those questions are not going to be answered unless there is a
> trial of these two officers.
Can't believe it - I agree with HTH!
> Are the rules of engagement correct? Did the
> officers position themselves in such a way that an innocent reaction from Mr
> Stanley resulted in their feeling that had to shoot? If so, did they act
> negligently? These are all reasonable questions that must be answered to
> ensure justice for Mr Stanley and to ensure that mistakes like these do not
> happen again.
Very good.
>
> I am disgusted by the tactics of some met police.
The only 'issue' I have with all these threads is the 'anti-police'
sentiment. Some here seem to think that the only 'right' verdict now is
guilty of murder!
This position is incredulous to me considering the groups view on
'innocent until guilty', miscarriages of justice etc.
Its all very left wing and anarchic to be spouting 'murder' at the
police officers.
Lets see what happens if and when a trial is ordered.
I also have to say I agree with Periander's view that everyone seems
perfectly happy with *this* inquest but voiced concerns about the first,
mainly because it didn't seem to have the 'right' verdict. Is there a
further right to appeal this 2nd decision? Could yet another jury get to
a different verdict? Anti-Police venom in this group is a pretty sad
thing. In my view the police simply mirror the behavior directed at them
in all but the rarest of circumstances.
g.
Periander.
news:109943456...@nnrp-t71-03.news.uk.clara.net......
>
> I am disgusted by the tactics of some met police. Effectively they are
Actually as a point of interest (and FWIW fact) they haven't turned in their
pink tickets in protest about the finding made at the new inquest, they've
done so in protest at the way the two officers have been dealt with by
senior officers.
Thought it'd help if folks were actually aware of why rather than just
supposing. ;-)
Harry The Horse
news:2uqi5fF...@uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > I am disgusted by the tactics of some met police.
>
> The only 'issue' I have with all these threads is the 'anti-police'
> sentiment. Some here seem to think that the only 'right' verdict now is
> guilty of murder!
>
it might be the process rather than the officers that are to blame. And the
'anti-police sentiment' has been stimulated by the actions of these
'striking' officers.
> This position is incredulous to me considering the groups view on
> 'innocent until guilty', miscarriages of justice etc.
> Its all very left wing and anarchic to be spouting 'murder' at the
> police officers.
>
> Lets see what happens if and when a trial is ordered.
>
Agreed.
> I also have to say I agree with Periander's view that everyone seems
> perfectly happy with *this* inquest but voiced concerns about the first,
> mainly because it didn't seem to have the 'right' verdict. Is there a
> further right to appeal this 2nd decision? Could yet another jury get to
> a different verdict? Anti-Police venom in this group is a pretty sad
> thing. In my view the police simply mirror the behavior directed at them
> in all but the rarest of circumstances.
>
Or the anti police sentiment is stimualted by their attitude towards us.
Fat Freddy's Cat
> "Fat Freddy's Cat" <por...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2uqi5fF...@uni-berlin.de...
>
>>>I am disgusted by the tactics of some met police.
>>
>>The only 'issue' I have with all these threads is the 'anti-police'
>>sentiment. Some here seem to think that the only 'right' verdict now is
>>guilty of murder!
>>
>
> I didn't say anything of the sort.
yeh, I know - sorry if it looked like I was referring to you on this
point, it was aimed at various posts to both the threads running on this
matter.
>
> Or the anti police sentiment is stimualted by their attitude towards us.
>
I don't think its chicken and egg - I personally feel they are being
shit on from a great height (by everybody!) in our brave new world of
liberalism (if you can call it that - I tend to use the term 'nanny
state') and poltiical correctness - not to mention the general break
down of people taking responsibility for their own actions.
I'm straying now so it might be rejected by mods, but it seems to me
that anyone entering any of the most important careers that shape
society as a whole (police, teaching, health) are just about on a hiding
to nothing these days.
g.
Cynic
<bigb...@4rubbish.britwar.co.uk> wrote:
> For my part I believe
>that they had the necessary honestly held belief and I have seen no serious
>suggestion that others think otherwise. You and I both know that providing
>that the accused person have an honestly held belief this in itself without
>reference to anything else is in effect an absolute defence in law.
On this part only.
The police are in a rather different position insofar that they have
deliberately placed themselves in a potential position of danger. I
would say that they are therefore obliged to make an assessment of the
degree of danger that they face *before* deliberately placing
themselves in harm's way, and that therefore the "honest belief" is
reasonable *only* if they have done such homework.
The police's story IIUC is that the policeman who fired first did not
actually consider that his *own* life was in danger, but believed that
HS was about to shoot his collegue.
Try this thought-experiment:
Harry Stanley had a friend following a hundred yards behind him who
*knew* that Harry was carrying a table leg, and also knew that armed
police were after his friend. He saw the armed poilce, heard the
challenge and Harry's reaction, and had an honest belief that a
policeman was about to shoot Harry. To save Harry's life, he killed
the policeman.
Would you say that in that case (a) the coroner should disallow the
jury from making a finding of "unlawful killing" in the death of the
policeman? (b) that Harry's friend should not stand trial?
--
Cynic
Cynic
wrote:
>On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 23:00:23 +0000, "Steve Walker" <spam...@beeb.net> wrote:
>
>>But..... do the officers of SO19 really think they can justifiably resort
>>to such ugly tactics?
>
>There is no requirement to carry a firearm or be trained to do so. It is
>voluntary.
>
>It is a pity that those officers outside of SO19, especially those employed on
>protection duties, are not making the same stand.
I agree completely. The less armed police, the safer I would feel.
--
Cynic
Cynic
<bigb...@4rubbish.britwar.co.uk> wrote:
>> No we're not. last time I looked the police had a number of powers
>> which I don't.. It's entirely appropriate to hold them to a higher
>> standard in the use of those powers.
>
>With respect Brian you're confusing rights with powers, the fact that
>certain groups have differing or increased powers compared to others doesn't
>effect the basic rights we all share.
It affects the ability to enforce those rights. Which has the same
effect as changing the rights. A "right" that cannot be enforced is
meaningless.
--
Cynic
Mike
<por...@hotmail.com> writes
>Harry The Horse wrote:
>
>>
>> I am disgusted by the tactics of some met police.
>
>The only 'issue' I have with all these threads is the 'anti-police'
>sentiment. Some here seem to think that the only 'right' verdict now is
>guilty of murder!
This newsgroup is meant to be about law. Unlawfully killing somebody by
an act intended to cause death or serious injury to that person is
murder.
>This position is incredulous to me considering the groups view on
>'innocent until guilty', miscarriages of justice etc.
The call is for them to be charged with murder - and given a fair trial.
>Its all very left wing and anarchic to be spouting 'murder' at the
>police officers.
>
>Lets see what happens if and when a trial is ordered.
>
If they're innocent, they've nothing to fear.
>I also have to say I agree with Periander's view that everyone seems
>perfectly happy with *this* inquest but voiced concerns about the first,
>mainly because it didn't seem to have the 'right' verdict.
An inquest (into a death) attempts to ascertain how a person died - an
"open verdict" is recorded when they fail to do so.
> Is there a
>further right to appeal this 2nd decision? Could yet another jury get to
>a different verdict? Anti-Police venom in this group is a pretty sad
>thing. In my view the police simply mirror the behavior directed at them
>in all but the rarest of circumstances.
>
Could it be that the public are mirroring the behaviour directed at them
by the police?
--
Mike
Cynic
wrote:
>On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 12:45:09 +0000, bigbrian <harr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Yes, but I'm not a specially trained firearms expert, There's no
>>reason why a higher standard shouldn't be demanded of trained
>>firearms professionals than of householders disturbed by burglars in
>>the night.
>
>No the same standard should apply to everyone as we are all equal under the
>law.
That is untrue. Consider the case where a qualified doctor kills a
person whilst attempting to render first-aid to the case when a
non-qualified person does the same thing.
--
Cynic
Cynic
wrote:
>On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 16:40:15 +0000, bigbrian <harr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>No we're not. last time I looked the police had a number of powers
>>which I don't.. It's entirely appropriate to hold them to a higher
>>standard in the use of those powers.
>
>No the powers to use force to protect themselves are exactly those that any
>person in this country has.
Obviously untrue. I am forbidden from carrying a firearm, or even a
can of mace in order to protect myself.
--
Cynic
Cynic
>Or don't we have accidents anymore?
That depends upon how you want to define "accident".
Assume a man at the pub who neither I nor my friend had ever met
before told my friend that *you* were carrying a gun and were a
terrorist. My friend passed on the information to me. I then
collected a firearm and deliberately went after you without further
question, and with little planning.
Honestly believing that you were dangerous, I shot you in the back
when seeing you begin to turn toward me when I shouted in your
direction.
You would really describe that as an *accident*?
--
Cynic
Cynic
<jona...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>It is reasonable to expect qualified police officers to be able to assess
>the situation themselves and determine what sort of force, if any, they
>need to use.
Yes, but if they get it wrong, they should be held accountable.
Just as I, being a qualified driver, would be held to account if I
misjudge an overtaking procedure and kill someone in a head-on
collision.
--
Cynic
Periander.
news:o37go0d098kld85g4...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 21:35:07 +0000, "Periander."
> <bigb...@4rubbish.britwar.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > For my part I believe
> >that they had the necessary honestly held belief and I have seen no
serious
> >suggestion that others think otherwise. You and I both know that
providing
> >that the accused person have an honestly held belief this in itself
without
> >reference to anything else is in effect an absolute defence in law.
>
> On this part only.
>
> The police are in a rather different position insofar that they have
> deliberately placed themselves in a potential position of danger.
Erm they are obliged to do so because of the nature of their duty.
> I
> would say that they are therefore obliged to make an assessment of the
> degree of danger that they face *before* deliberately placing
> themselves in harm's way, and that therefore the "honest belief" is
> reasonable *only* if they have done such homework.
How much time are you going to allow for this. Some forces have come into
critisism (and IMO rightly so) for siting back, assessing and all the time a
person is being killed, raped, assaulted, criminal escaping. The simple fact
is that if you are going to approach the task consienciously then often
there is no time to plan (or very limited time to do so) and that the only
possible course of action is to respond to events as they unfold. Yes, it
would always be better to sit back, plan and devise a strategy but in the
real world this isn't always possible.
> The police's story IIUC is that the policeman who fired first did not
> actually consider that his *own* life was in danger, but believed that
> HS was about to shoot his collegue.
>
> Try this thought-experiment:
>
> Harry Stanley had a friend following a hundred yards behind him who
> *knew* that Harry was carrying a table leg, and also knew that armed
> police were after his friend. He saw the armed poilce, heard the
> challenge and Harry's reaction, and had an honest belief that a
> policeman was about to shoot Harry. To save Harry's life, he killed
> the policeman.
>
> Would you say that in that case (a) the coroner should disallow the
> jury from making a finding of "unlawful killing" in the death of the
> policeman? (b) that Harry's friend should not stand trial?
That's silly for as you well know, or ought to I am an advocate of laws
being applied equally. The only comment I would otherwise make about your
scenario is that I would argue that there are other reasonable courses of
action initially available to the man, such as for instance shouting out
"Don't shoot he's unarmed" or perhaps even approaching the police officer
with the gun ... however if all else fails or if he does have that honestly
held belief then yes he does have the same defence as anyone else and whilst
I would be bloody annoyed I would nevertheless accept the legality of his
actions.
--
regards,
Periander
Periander.
As an aside and to be perfectly honest I regard SO19 as a waste of good
uniforms and for my part would much rather see the officers redeployed
walking the beat where they could actually do some police work. Of course to
compensate for their loss I'd hand the keys back for the gun lockers to the
local inspector and make firearms available to anyone who needed them.
Periander.
Assuming both were acting in good faith then no, I don't se a difference.
--
regards,
Periander
Periander.
Who says and by what right do they say this?
Going way off topic now but according to Parliament the Bill of Rights is as
valid today as it's ever been and that gives you the lawful authority to be
armed. To the best of my knowledge appeals on the basis of lawful authority
have never been made. Also in the light of various court cases that now
permit parliamentary speeches to be used as guidance in cases where the law
is unclear or subject to ambiguity then there's a good argument that the
defence of reasonable excuse should be re-visited.
Cynic
<bigb...@4rubbish.britwar.co.uk> wrote:
>> That is untrue. Consider the case where a qualified doctor kills a
>> person whilst attempting to render first-aid to the case when a
>> non-qualified person does the same thing.
>Assuming both were acting in good faith then no, I don't se a difference.
The difference is in the initial assumption as to whether they were or
were not acting in good faith. An fatal act by an unqualified person
may well be something done out of ignorance. The same act by a person
who ought to know better requires closer examination to determine
whetherit might be criminally negligent or even deliberate.
--
Cynic
Mike Siddall
<por...@hotmail.com> writes
>Harry The Horse wrote:
>
>>
>> There are real questions that need to be answered over the killing of Harry
>> Stanley, and those questions are not going to be answered unless there is a
>> trial of these two officers.
>
>Can't believe it - I agree with HTH!
>
>> Are the rules of engagement correct? Did the
>> officers position themselves in such a way that an innocent reaction from Mr
>> Stanley resulted in their feeling that had to shoot? If so, did they act
>> negligently? These are all reasonable questions that must be answered to
>> ensure justice for Mr Stanley and to ensure that mistakes like these do not
>> happen again.
>
>Very good.
>
>>
>> I am disgusted by the tactics of some met police.
>
>The only 'issue' I have with all these threads is the 'anti-police'
>sentiment. Some here seem to think that the only 'right' verdict now is
>guilty of murder!
I think for many people, me included, it's not that we're jumping to any
conclusions about criminal liability... it's just that the question in
case like this should be fairly asked.
>This position is incredulous to me considering the groups view on
>'innocent until guilty', miscarriages of justice etc.
>Its all very left wing and anarchic to be spouting 'murder' at the
>police officers.
>
>Lets see what happens if and when a trial is ordered.
>
>I also have to say I agree with Periander's view that everyone seems
>perfectly happy with *this* inquest but voiced concerns about the first,
>mainly because it didn't seem to have the 'right' verdict.
IIRC, the coroner in that inquest prevented the jury from considering an
unlawful killing verdict, so we don't know that they would not have come
to the same verdict as the second jury, although we know they rejected
accident as a verdict.
> Is there a
>further right to appeal this 2nd decision? Could yet another jury get to
>a different verdict? Anti-Police venom in this group is a pretty sad
>thing. In my view the police simply mirror the behavior directed at them
>in all but the rarest of circumstances.
>
It's not anti-police venom, it's merely declining to accept the version
the police have put forward ( on and off the record ) in the press.
I don't have a firm opinion myself that the police officers who fired
the shots were or were not criminally guilty, but I want it seriously
( i.e. evidence on oath about all the issues around it ) looked at.
Whether by trial or public inquiry, I don't particularly care. For
instance I want to know if they were told the victim had a gun, or that
he might have a gun. I want to know if their training is such that no
innocent person going about his business can come across armed officers
without almost certainly being shot. It might be a tragic accident with
nobody at fault, it might be criminal by the officers concerned,
negligent and they should be disciplined, or bad training and whoever
trained them disciplined.
I don't know, but I want to. The point is that if we weren't going
through the present process we never would know.
--
Mike Siddall
Cynic
<bigb...@4rubbish.britwar.co.uk> wrote:
>> The police are in a rather different position insofar that they have
>> deliberately placed themselves in a potential position of danger.
>
>Erm they are obliged to do so because of the nature of their duty.
So what do you say about the "barbecue murder" where the police
refused to act because they considered that it would be too dangerous
for them to attend?
This "duty" you speak of appears to be highly selective.
>> would say that they are therefore obliged to make an assessment of the
>> degree of danger that they face *before* deliberately placing
>> themselves in harm's way, and that therefore the "honest belief" is
>> reasonable *only* if they have done such homework.
>How much time are you going to allow for this. Some forces have come into
>critisism (and IMO rightly so) for siting back, assessing and all the time a
>person is being killed, raped, assaulted, criminal escaping. The simple fact
>is that if you are going to approach the task consienciously then often
>there is no time to plan (or very limited time to do so) and that the only
>possible course of action is to respond to events as they unfold. Yes, it
>would always be better to sit back, plan and devise a strategy but in the
>real world this isn't always possible.
In this case the police had an anonymous call regarding an unknown
threat that was certainly not immediate. In the barbeque murder, the
police ahs precise information regarding an armed man who had already
shot people.
>> Try this thought-experiment:
>>
>> Harry Stanley had a friend following a hundred yards behind him who
>> *knew* that Harry was carrying a table leg, and also knew that armed
>> police were after his friend. He saw the armed poilce, heard the
>> challenge and Harry's reaction, and had an honest belief that a
>> policeman was about to shoot Harry. To save Harry's life, he killed
>> the policeman.
>>
>> Would you say that in that case (a) the coroner should disallow the
>> jury from making a finding of "unlawful killing" in the death of the
>> policeman? (b) that Harry's friend should not stand trial?
>
>That's silly for as you well know, or ought to I am an advocate of laws
>being applied equally. The only comment I would otherwise make about your
>scenario is that I would argue that there are other reasonable courses of
>action initially available to the man, such as for instance shouting out
>"Don't shoot he's unarmed" or perhaps even approaching the police officer
>with the gun ...
Perhaps he did not have the time to plan a strategy? ... You see, any
excuse you could possibly give for the police would apply equally in
this scenario.
> however if all else fails or if he does have that honestly
>held belief then yes he does have the same defence as anyone else and whilst
>I would be bloody annoyed I would nevertheless accept the legality of his
>actions.
That was not the question I asked. It may be that he *should* be
acquitted. I could live with that. The question however was whether
he should stand trial in order to determine whether his act was
legally justified.
--
Cynic
bigbrian
If I do, then presumably Harry Stanley did too. So why did his
exercise of that right result (leaving aside the difference between
the sniper rifle and a shotgun) in an armed response unit being called
to ask him about it, and end up killing him?
Brian
Mark Goodge
typed:
>In uk.legal.moderated on Tue, 2 Nov 2004 20:50:06 +0000, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>}They made the wrong decision, yes. But it was not a culpable mistake -
>}they simply made the wrong call on a matter of pure chance. Had it
>}gone the other way, and they hadn't fired at a man who was carrying a
>}gun and was prepared to use it, we would have the opposite criticism
>}that the police didn't protect the public.
>
>No. This is not so, there was No chance involved.
There is always chance involved. Any assesment of the situation that
does not take this into account is fatally flawed.
Mark
--
--> http://www.FridayFun.net - jokes, games and ringtones! <--
"I feel dangerous 'cos I hunger for the truth"
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 20:50:06 +0000, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In this kind of situation, it is impossible for the police to be
>>totally certain that they have made the correct decision before
>>opening fire. That's "impossible" in the absolute, physical sense, not
>>simply difficult or unlikely. Human reaction times are such that a
>>person holding a gun can turn and fire it (eg, towards a police
>>officer or bystander) before anyone watching - even a trained SO19
>>officer with a rifle trained on the suspect - has time to wait and see
>>that there really is a gun there before the suspect shoots. The police
>>decision will be made on the basis of what the suspect does before
>>they have time to see if he really is carrying a gun
>
>The police's biggest mistake was made well before that. They deployed
>an armed response unit in response to a single, anonymous,
>uncorroborated report from a pub that someone was carrying a sawn off
>shotgun. (If I make an anonymous, uncorroborated report from a pub to
>the effect that you're holding someone hostage in your house, is it
>OK by you if the police come and smash your door in in the middle of
>the night?).
Indeed. This may well, on investigation, turn out to be a culpable
mistake. But the officers on the ground didn't know this, and
therefore they had no choice but to react as if the suspect was likely
to be carrying a gun.
Mark
--
--> http://photos.markshouse.net - see my world! <--
"You surround me like a winter fog, you've come and burned me
with a kiss"
Paul Robson
> In message <cm8mja$rs8$2...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>, Paul Robson
> <auti...@autismuk.muralichucks.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>>Periander. wrote:
>>
>>> Two of their collegues are being set up to be scapegoats simply in order
>>> to pander to a vocal yet minority public opinion. Baring in mind that
>>> there had already been an inquest the second inquest smacks of "double
>>> jeapordy", how would you feel for instance if a person found not guilty
>>> in a criminal court was constantly re-tried until the "right" verdict
>>> was eventually found?
>>
>>I suppose if at the first trial the judge forbade the option of them being
>>"guilty" then it might be justified.
>>
> A judge can direct a verdict of "not guilty" but an inquest isn't the
> same as a criminal trial. The "open verdict" returned by the first
> inquest jury was a non-verdict (IMO) which was just a way of them saying
> "we don't know but it wasn't justifiable homicide" (the only other
> verdict open to them). ISTM the "open verdict" is more analogous to a
> hung jury than a finding of "not guilty".
It's a bit different. The judge has to give some kind of reason for a not
guilty verdict. The original coroner was laughably biased (including
Stanley's criminal convictions) and desperate to exonerate the Police.
AFAIR the open verdict was returned because the other alternative was lawful
killing. Which the jury refused to give.
Paul Robson
> In this case, the officers present at the incident itself had been
> sent there by their senior officers, who believed that a man was
> carrying a gun. The SO19 team wouldn't have been there unless this was
> the case. So they were already in a situation where they had strong
> reason to believe that Harry Stanley had a gun. When they challenged
> him, he responded in a manner which supported their belief - so they
> shot him. We now know that he wasn't carrying a gun. But the officers
> present didn't know that - and had no way they could have known that,
> or discovered it, in the time they had available in which to make
> their decision about whether to shoot him or not.
>
> They made the wrong decision, yes. But it was not a culpable mistake -
> they simply made the wrong call on a matter of pure chance. Had it
> gone the other way, and they hadn't fired at a man who was carrying a
> gun and was prepared to use it, we would have the opposite criticism
> that the police didn't protect the public.
I think you rather miss the point.
The Police don't allow these excuses for anyone else.
Therefore they should not be allowed for Policemen.
Paul Robson
> I have to grant you that, however I have to point out that lots of
> "innocent" people are killed every week and in many cases the only answer
> that can be given is "life's a bitch", I have to say that I regard this
> case as failing within that category. To me the whole argument smacks of
> double standards, for instance one thing that those who argue that these
> officers should be scapegoated never mention is what they believe the
> officers to have been thinking at the time they shot the chap. For my part
> I believe that they had the necessary honestly held belief and I have seen
> no serious suggestion that others think otherwise. You and I both know
> that providing that the accused person have an honestly held belief this
> in itself without reference to anything else is in effect an absolute
> defence in law.
Maybe someone should tell the Police and CPS that, because they don't appear
to think so for people who aren't Policemen.
Paul Robson
> I also have to say I agree with Periander's view that everyone seems
> perfectly happy with this inquest but voiced concerns about the first,
> mainly because it didn't seem to have the 'right' verdict. Is there a
> further right to appeal this 2nd decision? Could yet another jury get to
> a different verdict? Anti-Police venom in this group is a pretty sad
> thing. In my view the police simply mirror the behavior directed at them
> in all but the rarest of circumstances.
The first verdict was clearly bent. They could *not* return unlawfully
killed as a verdict, for no reason other than the coroner's say-so.
Periander.
Bo**ocks, do you have any idea of how few doctors have experience or
training in providing first aid/emergency life support? No, sorry completely
disagree with you on this I have an objection to punishing people who seek
to help, you appear to assume that because the person died following an
intervention by a doctor then the doctor must somehow be judged not to be
acting in good faith or to be somehow otherwise culpable. I'd argue that you
have to apply the same standards across the board.
--
regards,
Periander
Periander.
> On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 00:40:08 +0000, "Periander."
> <bigb...@4rubbish.britwar.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> The police are in a rather different position insofar that they have
> >> deliberately placed themselves in a potential position of danger.
> >
> >Erm they are obliged to do so because of the nature of their duty.
>
> So what do you say about the "barbecue murder" where the police
> refused to act because they considered that it would be too dangerous
> for them to attend?
>
> This "duty" you speak of appears to be highly selective.
Methinks a little unfair of you considering the comments below.
> >> would say that they are therefore obliged to make an assessment of the
> >> degree of danger that they face *before* deliberately placing
> >> themselves in harm's way, and that therefore the "honest belief" is
> >> reasonable *only* if they have done such homework.
>
> >How much time are you going to allow for this. Some forces have come into
> >critisism (and IMO rightly so) for siting back, ...
>
> In this case the police had an anonymous call regarding an unknown
> threat that was certainly not immediate. In the barbeque murder, the
> police ahs precise information regarding an armed man who had already
> shot people.
Ah, so it's OK to jump in after someone has been killed, but it's not ok to
jump in to stop someone being killed. Intresting suggestion, forgive me if I
don't agree with you on this.
...
> Perhaps he did not have the time to plan a strategy? ... You see, any
> excuse you could possibly give for the police would apply equally in
> this scenario.
I belive that this was the point I made - or certanly intended to.
> > however if all else fails or if he does have that honestly
> >held belief then yes he does have the same defence as anyone else and
whilst
> >I would be bloody annoyed I would nevertheless accept the legality of his
> >actions.
>
> That was not the question I asked. It may be that he *should* be
> acquitted. I could live with that. The question however was whether
> he should stand trial in order to determine whether his act was
> legally justified.
I know, lets send it to the coroner and let him decide, same rule for
everyone old bean.
--
regards,
Periander
Periander.
For the fairly obvious reason that the police officers who shot him thought
that he was about to shoot at them.
Jo Lonergan
wrote:
>The police's biggest mistake was made well before that. They deployed
>an armed response unit in response to a single, anonymous,
>uncorroborated report from a pub that someone was carrying a sawn off
>shotgun. (If I make an anonymous, uncorroborated report from a pub to
>the effect that you're holding someone hostage in your house, is it
>OK by you if the police come and smash your door in in the middle of
>the night?).
>
If the person who made the report could be identified, could they be
prosecuted for anything? Attempting to waste police time, incitement
to murder? Would it make a difference if the caller had any possible
interest in the victim's death?
Does the principle of judging culpability from the outcome (as
discussed here a few weeks ago in respect, IIRC, to driving offences)
also hold here?
--
Jo
Mike
<bigb...@4rubbish.britwar.co.uk> writes
>> exercise of that right result (leaving aside the difference between
>> the sniper rifle and a shotgun) in an armed response unit being called
>> to ask him about it, and end up killing him?
>
>For the fairly obvious reason that the police officers who shot him thought
>that he was about to shoot at them.
>
been justifiable. It seems the jury didn't believe them.
--
Mike
Mike
<auti...@autismuk.muralichucks.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>Mike wrote:
>
>>>
>> A judge can direct a verdict of "not guilty" but an inquest isn't the
>> same as a criminal trial. The "open verdict" returned by the first
>> inquest jury was a non-verdict (IMO) which was just a way of them saying
>> "we don't know but it wasn't justifiable homicide" (the only other
>> verdict open to them). ISTM the "open verdict" is more analogous to a
>> hung jury than a finding of "not guilty".
>
>It's a bit different. The judge has to give some kind of reason for a not
>guilty verdict. The original coroner was laughably biased (including
>Stanley's criminal convictions) and desperate to exonerate the Police.
>
>AFAIR the open verdict was returned because the other alternative was lawful
>killing. Which the jury refused to give.
>
It's fairly obvious what verdict they would have returned had they been
allowed to - despite the coroner's attempts to poison their minds
against Harry Stanley.
--
Mike
Cynic
<bigb...@4rubbish.britwar.co.uk> wrote:
>> So what do you say about the "barbecue murder" where the police
>> refused to act because they considered that it would be too dangerous
>> for them to attend?
>>
>> This "duty" you speak of appears to be highly selective.
>
>Methinks a little unfair of you considering the comments below.
>
>> In this case the police had an anonymous call regarding an unknown
>> threat that was certainly not immediate. In the barbeque murder, the
>> police ahs precise information regarding an armed man who had already
>> shot people.
>
>Ah, so it's OK to jump in after someone has been killed, but it's not ok to
>jump in to stop someone being killed. Intresting suggestion, forgive me if I
>don't agree with you on this.
There was no way that the police in the Harry Stanley case *knew*
(ie.e as a fact) that Harry Stanley was either armed or intended to
kill anyone. In the barbecue murder OTOH, the police knew *as a fact*
that (a) the man had a real firearm, (b) had used it to shoot a person
and (c) was on the loose with the firearm. I would say therefore that
the risk of further killings was more likely in the barbecue case than
with HS.
Also, the person shot was not dead at the time, and obviously needed
very urgent medical attention, which could not be provided unless the
police offered protection to the ambulance crew.
>> That was not the question I asked. It may be that he *should* be
>> acquitted. I could live with that. The question however was whether
>> he should stand trial in order to determine whether his act was
>> legally justified.
>
>I know, lets send it to the coroner and let him decide, same rule for
>everyone old bean.
The coroner's court did indeed decide in the case of the barbecue
murder, but the coroner in that case did not seek to protect the
killer by disallowing certain verdict options.
--
Cynic
Cynic
<bigb...@4rubbish.britwar.co.uk> wrote:
>> Obviously untrue. I am forbidden from carrying a firearm, or even a
>> can of mace in order to protect myself.
>Who says and by what right do they say this?
Our government says, by the powers vested in them to make up the rules
as they go along.
>Going way off topic now but according to Parliament the Bill of Rights is as
>valid today as it's ever been and that gives you the lawful authority to be
>armed.
It is against the law to possess a firearm without a valid licence.
It is impossible for the average citizen to be granted such a licence.
> To the best of my knowledge appeals on the basis of lawful authority
>have never been made.
They would undoubtedly fail.
> Also in the light of various court cases that now
>permit parliamentary speeches to be used as guidance in cases where the law
>is unclear or subject to ambiguity then there's a good argument that the
>defence of reasonable excuse should be re-visited.
I'll leave that to someone with a great deal of time & money who is
prepared to go to jail if he is wrong. Would *you* volunteer to be a
test case?
--
Cynic
Cynic
I have not said that the doctor is guilty. I have said that his
actions should be examined in more depth. And yes, I *do* get upset
with people who think that they are helping but who make a situation
worse. "Acting in good faith" can be powerful mitigation, but it does
not necessarily *excuse* an extremely harmful act. At the extreme,
the act must still be examined by a Court to decide whether there was
any criminal culpability in anyone involved in the chain of events
that culminated in the harmful act.
Which is all that I am asking to happen in the case of Harry Stanley.
--
Cynic
Lansbury
>There's nothing wrong with calling people who do have that right to
>account when the exercise of that right results in the death of an
>innocent party.
I don't disagree and there is nothing wrong with those people declining to
carry a firearm in public.
-
Lansbury
www.uk-air.net
FAQs for the alt.travel.uk.air newsgroup
Lansbury
>>No the powers to use force to protect themselves are exactly those that any
>>person in this country has.
>
>Obviously untrue. I am forbidden from carrying a firearm, or even a
>can of mace in order to protect myself.
No very true. While they carry such things they may still only use reasonable
to force to defend themselves. You are mistaken what they carry with the power
to use it. If it would be unreasonable force to use a CS Spray then just
because they carry it doesn't mean they use it.
Which has nothing to do with the fact that there is no compulsion to carry a
firearm so they have every right to decline to do so.
Lansbury
>Taking a person's life is a very serious step. It's quite right that
>anyone who does so should be called to account.
No one is saying that those that do so shouldn't be held to account. But as
those that did are adamant that they acted in accordance with their training
and the force guidelines those that still hold firearms tickets are handing
them in because it appears that this training and guidelines have been found
wanting by the jury.
What the concern is that they have been trained to do things in a certain way
and on being called to account this has found to be wanting. The rest of the
firearms officers are now concerned that faced with a similar situation and
acting as trained they could also be in the same position. Hence a great many
have withdrawn their voluntary wish to be armed.
I have no problems with there being an inquiring of any sort into a shooting
but I also defend the right of any police officer to refuse to be armed, it is
not a requirement in the terms of their employment. My inclusion into this
thread was to defend those officers that are now so declining against the
remarks made by Steve Walker
Cynic
wrote:
>On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 00:25:07 +0000, Cynic <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>No the powers to use force to protect themselves are exactly those that any
>>>person in this country has.
>>
>>Obviously untrue. I am forbidden from carrying a firearm, or even a
>>can of mace in order to protect myself.
>
>No very true. While they carry such things they may still only use reasonable
>to force to defend themselves. You are mistaken what they carry with the power
>to use it. If it would be unreasonable force to use a CS Spray then just
>because they carry it doesn't mean they use it.
Having or not having a "power" means nothing whatsoever if I am
forbidden the means of using that power. If a situation arises where
it would be legal top use CS spray, the policeman has the choice to
carry and use CS spray, whereas I am denied that choice.
Were I to use CS spray in self defence, I have little doubt that even
though I may well escape prosecution for using the spray, I would be
prosecuted for possessing it in the first place.
--
Cynic
Lansbury
>the policeman has the choice to
>carry and use CS spray, whereas I am denied that choice.
>
There is not choice to carry it is a mandated piece of officer safety
equipment and will be carried. Its use is by choice providing they can justify
it, not as simple as oh heck I think I'll give the person a face full of CS
Spray.
>Were I to use CS spray in self defence, I have little doubt that even
>though I may well escape prosecution for using the spray, I would be
>prosecuted for possessing it in the first place.
I guess you would but that still doesn't get round the fact that the law on
using reasonable force to protect yourself applies equally to everyone. If a
police officer uses CS Spray they have to show cause. While you are not
allowed to carry it you are also not expected to put yourself in danger to
protect others, if you want a police officer to do that you have to give them
the tools to do the job. If you don't want that protection fine withdraw the
means of it being provided.
The choice is the publics, they are free to make them and the consequences of
them whatever that would likely to be. In the case under discussion here a
sizeable number of armed officers deciding they no longer wish to be armed and
whatever knock on effect that has on the streets in any.
Derek Hornby
> No, police officers don't employment contracts
So re you saying there are no agreements about pay, sick leave, holiday
leave, overtime rates, how many hours to work, Time a shift to start, and
exactly what the officer's responsibilities are.
and just to put your mind at
> ease there is nothing in their attestation that says that they are obliged
> to carry guns, drive cars or anything else silly like that.
So if an officer *always* refuses to drive he won't be sacked?
> As far as their legal status goes well from the youngest probationer to the
> oldest chief constable they are one and all holders of an independent
> office and cannot be ordered by anyone from the local councillor to HM
> herself (gor bless 'er)
Isee so they never get the sack when not working as they should.
I was sure I've heard of many officers getting the sack, and even
chief constables being sacked.
Derek
Howard Neil
If I may throw a little light on this as you are both making valid points.
A police officer is an office holder in his/her own right. The decisions
that the officer makes regarding the execution of the office of
Constable (e.g. whether to arrest, report, or caution an offender) is
entirely that of the officer concerned and nobody else.
However, there is a work contract and a discipline code. An officer can
issue orders to another officer of lower rank as relates to things such
as appearance, hours of duty, general behaviour, etc, but cannot
instruct that officer to exercise his/her powers of a Constable.
Having said that, any officer that went against a force's policies
relating to those powers *could* find themselves performing rather
unpopular duties.
--
Howard Neil
Richard Miller
<bigb...@4rubbish.britwar.co.uk> writes
>For my part I believe that they had the necessary honestly held belief
>and I have seen no serious suggestion that others think otherwise. You
>and I both know that providing that the accused person have an honestly
>held belief this in itself without reference to anything else is in
>effect an absolute defence in law.
I think this is a case that could see the development of the law.
In my view, from what is known of the case, the police officers
concerned should be convicted of manslaughter for their initial
negligence in placing themselves wholly unnecessarily in a position
where they were so exposed as to have to use force to defend themselves.
You are looking at it only from the second Harry Stanley (allegedly)
turned to face them. I am looking at the whole incident, because it was
the police who were in complete control of the incident.
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> writes
>Indeed. This may well, on investigation, turn out to be a culpable
>mistake. But the officers on the ground didn't know this, and therefore
>they had no choice but to react as if the suspect was likely to be
>carrying a gun.
Of course they had a choice. They could have chosen to believe anything
from it being a hoax to it being possibly accurate but unproven to
believing that he definitely was armed. They chose to believe the most
extreme, when there was no justification for doing so.
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
<spam...@fensoft.co.uk> writes
>In message <2uqi5fF...@uni-berlin.de>, Fat Freddy's Cat
><por...@hotmail.com> writes
>>Harry The Horse wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I am disgusted by the tactics of some met police.
>>
>>The only 'issue' I have with all these threads is the 'anti-police'
>>sentiment. Some here seem to think that the only 'right' verdict now is
>>guilty of murder!
>
>This newsgroup is meant to be about law. Unlawfully killing somebody by
>an act intended to cause death or serious injury to that person is
>murder.
>
And this case, in much the same way as the Lee Clegg case, highlights
the flaw in our murder laws in this country. These officers do not
deserve to be branded as murderers, but there is a real possibility that
under our law as it currently stands, that is the "correct" legal
verdict for these facts.
There is a way round that, however, if the view taken is that the
negligent act was in placing themselves in a position where they had to
shoot first and ask questions later. In that situation, the negligence
might lead to a verdict of manslaughter. There is a possibility that
those who devised their training should be in the dock with them.
Roll on Blunkett's review - one of the few things he has done right.
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
<jona...@localhost.localdomain> writes
>
>They could be deployed because whoever is in charge thinks that lethal force
>might be necessary. By the time it actually is, there may not be enough
>time to get them in.
>
>It is reasonable to expect qualified police officers to be able to assess
>the situation themselves and determine what sort of force, if any, they
>need to use.
Exactly. The mistake was in entering the situation assuming that the
circumstances warranted lethal force, when this was at the time and
without needing to use hindsight completely unproven, and in the event
untrue.
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
>I also have to say I agree with Periander's view that everyone seems
>perfectly happy with *this* inquest but voiced concerns about the
>first,
>mainly because it didn't seem to have the 'right' verdict. Is there a
>further right to appeal this 2nd decision? Could yet another jury get
>to
>a different verdict? Anti-Police venom in this group is a pretty sad
>thing. In my view the police simply mirror the behavior directed at
>them
>in all but the rarest of circumstances.
The two jury verdicts are entirely consistent. The first jury was given
a choice between lawful killing and an open verdict, and they point
blank refused to find it was a lawful killing. The Court then found that
this inquest was legally flawed, and just as the Court of Appeal can
order a retrial in a criminal matter, the Court in this case ordered a
new inquest. At this inquest, the jury once again point blank refused to
find the killing lawful.
So that is now two juries having heard the evidence that have concluded
that the killing was not lawful.
If there was any legal flaw in this inquest, then yes it could again be
overturned and another inquest held.
And just for the record, in the case of Derek Bennett, who was killed by
police after being seen waving around a "gun" that turned out to be a
lighter in the shape of a gun, I think the police acted entirely
lawfully and probably in the only way they reasonably could.
As I said elsewhere, it is not just the "usual suspects" who are deeply
unhappy about this case.
--
Richard Miller
Mark Goodge
and typed:
They do, actually. Self-defence is a legal reason to kill someone.
Mark
--
--> http://photos.markshouse.net - see my world! <--
"Goodbye... And it's emotional"
Mike
<ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> writes
>>an act intended to cause death or serious injury to that person is
>>murder.
>
>And this case, in much the same way as the Lee Clegg case, highlights
>the flaw in our murder laws in this country.
Especially given the mandatory life sentence for murder.
> These officers do not
>deserve to be branded as murderers, but there is a real possibility that
>under our law as it currently stands, that is the "correct" legal
>verdict for these facts.
>
>There is a way round that, however, if the view taken is that the
>negligent act was in placing themselves in a position where they had to
>shoot first and ask questions later. In that situation, the negligence
>might lead to a verdict of manslaughter. There is a possibility that
>those who devised their training should be in the dock with them.
>
Thanks for that explanation. I was going to ask why you thought they
should only be tried for manslaughter when I saw your other post.
>Roll on Blunkett's review - one of the few things he has done right.
--
Mike
Periander.
news:cmb19p$6pt$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
> "Periander." <bigb...@4rubbish.britwar.co.uk> wrote
>
>
> > No, police officers don't employment contracts
> So re you saying there are no agreements about pay, sick leave, holiday
> leave, overtime rates, how many hours to work, Time a shift to start, and
> exactly what the officer's responsibilities are.
No, I'm saying that there are no employment contrats for police. Working
conditions are set by regulation.
> and just to put your mind at
> > ease there is nothing in their attestation that says that they are
obliged
> > to carry guns, drive cars or anything else silly like that.
>
> So if an officer *always* refuses to drive he won't be sacked?
No, nor can he be (if that was the only comment about him).
> > As far as their legal status goes well from the youngest probationer to
the
> > oldest chief constable they are one and all holders of an independent
> > office and cannot be ordered by anyone from the local councillor to HM
> > herself (gor bless 'er)
>
> Isee so they never get the sack when not working as they should.
> I was sure I've heard of many officers getting the sack, and even
> chief constables being sacked.
I've replied to your new thread (another you appear to have copied piecemeal
from The Times) that outlines the caselaw on the subject.