Shot dead by police 30. Officers convicted 0
Mr X
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article321142.ece
Shot dead by police 30. Officers convicted 0
No charges for policemen who killed man carrying table leg
By Robert Verkaik and Jason Bennetto
Published: 21 October 2005
The Attorney General was accused of bowing to political pressure last
night after it emerged that no police officer will be prosecuted for
shooting dead a man armed with a wooden table leg.
The killing of Harry Stanley, a painter and decorator from east London,
raises concern about whether the criminal justice system is capable of
holding police officers to account for shooting dead members of the
public. In the past 12 years no police officer has been successfully
prosecuted for any of the 30 fatalities caused by police marksmen.
Concern over police officers' accountability for their use of firearms
has been heightened by the controversy surrounding the shooting of Jean
Charles de Menezes at Stockwell Underground station in London on 22
July. The Brazilian was shot dead after marksmen wrongly suspected he
was a suicide bomber.
Last night, human rights campaigners accused the Crown Prosecution
Service of giving the police immunity in gun death cases, while Mr
Stanley's widow said she was "devastated" at the outcome of the inquiry.
The Justice for Harry Stanley campaign said: "The CPS and the Attorney
General have illustrated very clearly that the police not only have the
right to shoot to kill, but they will be afforded total immunity from
prosecution. This is clearly the most serious attack not just on the
Stanley family but a warning to all the other families whose loved ones
are shot dead, while going about their everyday business."
Lawyers for the family and the group Inquest said they suspected the
Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, may have influenced the decision not
to bring charges against any officers.
Daniel Machover, who represents Mr Stanley's widow, Irene, said he had
"genuine concern that Lord Goldsmith's input may have influenced or
determined the final decision". He added: "What we know is that there
was dialogue between the DPP and the Attorney General and a lot of to-
ing and fro-ing before the family and police were told of the decision."
Deborah Coles, a co-director of Inquest, said: "You must ask whether or
not there is a political policy at play in these cases and whether there
was a political context in which this particular decision was made."
Last night, the Attorney General denied there was any political
interference in the decision. A spokesperson for the Attorney General
said: "The decision not to prosecute was taken by an experienced Crown
Prosecution Service lawyer on the advice of leading counsel and was
reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Prosecutions. The
Attorney General was consulted and agreed with the CPS decision. It is
absolutely wrong and misleading to suggest that there was any political
influence. It is standard practice for the DPP to consult the Attorney
in high-profile or complex cases."
The death of Mr Stanley, 46, from Hackney, east London, has become one
of the most controversial police shootings of modern times. The unarmed
father-of-three was shot in the head and hand on a London street in
September 1999 while walking home after a table leg he had in a bag was
mistaken for a gun.
Chief Inspector Neil Sharman, 42, and PC Kevin Fagan, 38, firearms
officers with the Metropolitan Police, were arrested in June this year
on suspicion of murder, gross negligence, manslaughter and conspiracy to
pervert the course of justice, and bailed in connection with the case.
The arrests followed new forensic evidence that contradicted the
officers' accounts of the shooting and indicated that Mr Stanley was
shot while facing away from the marksmen. The two officers told an
inquest in 2004 that Mr Stanley had turned around "in a slow,
deliberate, fluid motion" and pointed his wrapped-up table leg at PC
Fagan, adopting a classic firing posture. This prompted Ch Insp Sharman
to open fire, hitting Mr Stanley in the head.
A forensic scientist found that Mr Stanley had been shot in the rear
side of his head - which indicated that he was not facing the officers
at the point of impact. A bullet hole had also gone through the back of
Mr Stanley's jacket, through the shoulder, suggesting he had his back
turned on the officers.
Mr Stanley was shot dead after someone telephoned the police and told
them they had seen an Irishman with a sawn-off shotgun in a bag. Mr
Stanley, who was originally from Lanarkshire, Scotland, was carrying a
blue plastic bag with a coffee-table leg inside, which had been repaired
by his brother.
The inquest returned a verdict of unlawful killing, which was overturned
in the High Court. The CPS, however, decided yesterday that there was
"insufficient evidence" to bring any charges against the officers. Two
specialists, one hired by the Police Federation, the other by Surrey
Police, the investigating force, said the forensic evidence did not
prove that the officers were lying.
In a statement issued yesterday the CPS said there was not enough
evidence to rebut the officers' accounts that they were acting in self-
defence. The CPS did, however, say it was "arguable that the officers'
haste and lack of planning led them to breach their duty of care to Mr
Stanley and cause his death".
After yesterday's decision not to bring charges, the dead man's widow
promised to "keep fighting" for justice for her husband. Irene Stanley,
who is consulting lawyers about a possible challenge to the CPS decision
in the High Court and the European Court of Human Rights, said: " What
happened today was an injustice. I am devastated by it, though I half
expected it. I am going to keep fighting but can't say more until I
receive legal advice. I am also disgusted that I first heard of the CPS
decision at 7.30am because of a leak to a tabloid newspaper."
Ms Coles said public confidence in the criminal justice system would be
severely undermined. She said it now appeared that British justice "
puts police officers above the law". She added: "At a time when there is
a massive increase of the number of armed police on our streets, it is
imperative that the public have confidence in their ability to act
professionally and safely."
The 30 victims
JEAN CHARLES DE MENEZES, 27
Shot dead by police on 22 July 2005 after being mistaken for a suicide
bomber.
PROSECUTIONS: Officers suspended until the investigation result is
published.
PHILIP PROUT, 53
Shot by a police marksman after a baton gun failed to fire, in Cornwall
in May 2004.
PROSECUTIONS: The CPS decided there was insufficient evidence to charge
the officers.
DEREK BENNETT, 29
In July 2001, police shot him four times in the back in Brixton, south
London. He had been holding a gun-shaped cigarette lighter to a man's
head.
PROSECUTIONS: CPS found insufficient evidence to prosecute.
JAMES ASHLEY, 39
Shot during a police drugs raid on his house in Sussex in 1998. Ashley
was unarmed, naked and with his girlfriend.
PROSECUTIONS: Officer who fired the shot found not guilty of murder or
manslaughter.
CRAIG KING, 32
Bouncer from Greater Manchester was shot by police on 11 September this
year.
PROSECUTIONS: No officers have been charged.
JOHN SCOTT, 42
Killed in Northumberland in July after he fired a gun as police broke up
a disturbance.
PROSECUTIONS: None
AZELLE RODNEY, 24
Shot in Edgware in April after bullets were fired into car of suspected
drug dealers.
PROSECUTIONS: None
SIMON MURDEN, 26
Killed in Hull in March after brandishing a sword.
PROSECUTIONS: None
KEITH LARKINS, 33
Former mental patient shot in June at Heathrow after brandishing a blank
pistol at police.
PROSECUTIONS: None
DAVID EWIN, 38
Former robber killed in London in March 1995 in a stolen car.
PROSECUTIONS: Officer tried and cleared of murder.
NICHOLAS PALMER, 23
Shot by police in south London in 2004. Failed to answer bail after
arrest on arms offences.
PROSECUTIONS: None
COLIN O'CONNOR, 39
Thief shot in 2003 in Bedfordshire after being caught with a pistol in a
stolen Jaguar.
PROSECUTION: None
FOSTA THOMPSON, 20
Jamaican shot in Bristol after defying police in 2002.
PROSECUTION: None
JASON GIFFORD, 27
Shot in 2002 in Aylesbury after he confronted officers with a sword and
shotgun
PROSECUTION: None
MICHAEL MALSBURY, 62
shot in 2001 running out of his house in Harrow firing at police.
PROSECUTION: None
STEVEN DICKSON, 30
Shot in 2001 waving a home-made shotgun in Derbyshire.
PROSECUTION: None
ANDREW KERNAN, 37
Schizophrenic with sword shot in Liverpool in 2001.
PROSECUTION: None
PATRICK O'DONNELL, 19
Killed in 2000 after taking his mother and girlfriend hostage in north
London.
PROSECUTION: None
KIRK DAVIES, 30
Former soldier was shot in West Yorkshire in September 2000 after he
threatened an officer with an air rifle.
PROSECUTION: None
HARRY STANLEY, 46
Shot by police in 1999.
PROSECUTION: None
DEREK BATEMAN, 47
Shot in Surrey in 1999 after girlfriend told officers he was armed and
was threatening to shoot her, or himself.
PROSECUTION: None
ANTONY KITTS, 20
Shot in Falmouth in 1999, threatening police with an air rifle thought
to be a shotgun.
PROSECUTIONS: None
MICHAEL FITZGERALD, 32
Shot in Bedford in 1998 aiming a replica Colt 45 at police.
PROSECUTIONS: None
DAVID HOWELL, 41
Psychiatric patient shot in 1996 at a Co-op supermarket.
PROSECUTIONS: None
DIARMUID O'NEILL, 27
Unarmed IRA suspect shot in raid in west London.
PROSECUTIONS: None
JAMES BRADY, 21
Shot in 1995 in police ambush at village near Newcastle.
PROSECUTIONS: None
ROBERT DIXON, 45
Wild West fan fired at police, but gun may have been replica.
PROSECUTIONS: None
DAVID STONE, 35
Killed in 1993, carrying pistol in north London.
PROSECUTIONS: None
IAN HAY, 39
Mentally ill farmer shot in Devon in 1993 after police tried to
investigate gunshot reports.
PROSECUTIONS: None
DAVID LUCKHURST, 46
Publican in Hertfordshire shot in 1993 after he fired rifle at officers
in siege at home.
PROSECUTIONS: None
========================================================================
I think this demonstrates how thoroughly corrupt the system is.
Everybody equal under the law? You must be joking!
--
Mr X
Harry The Horse
> 21 October 2005 07:46
>
> http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article321142.ece
>
> Shot dead by police 30. Officers convicted 0
>
with extremist apologists from police misbehaviour, such as Kev, is that
they refuse to acknowledge that any mistakes have been made and simply blame
the victim ('illegal immigrant', 'ex-bank robber') or smear their critics as
'police haters'.
Fred
"Harry The Horse" <HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:11298807...@echo.uk.clara.net...
Mistakes are made in every walk of life. The exception is the Police who
just can't seem to admit mistakes are made. You have to be an unarmed man
to be gunned down, in a hail of bullets whilst held down, in order for the
family to eventually get that apology. Not much chance for Harry Stanley's
family.
Mr X
<HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> writes
Or paranoids
I agree a lot of them are justifiable -- but those are not the cases
that cause the concerns!
I notice a few cases missing from that list -- John Shorthouse, for
instance
--
Mr X
jason
"Fred" <Fr...@n0spam.c0m> wrote in message
news:4358a253$0$23295$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
Erm, it wasnt the police that did that one!!!!!!!!
>
bigbrian
And the most notorious of the lot (which will be missing because he
miraculously managed to survive), Stephen Waldorf. He only managed to
survive because the police "marksman" had emptied his gun from point
blank range while trying to kill Waldorf, so that when he pressed it
against Waldorf's head, said "okay cocksucker" and the pulled the
trigger (all entirely in self defence, obviously) the gun was already
empty
And there was Cherie Groce, who also survived, albeit paralysed, when
they shot her while looking for her son
Brian
Mr X
<harr...@hotmail.com> writes
You may recall, it was the Waldorf shooting that brought in the failed
system of specialist armed teams which was supposed to stop further
armed fiasco's occurring
--
Mr X
Palindr☻me
What price a human life? In many of the cases you highlight,
my reaction is that surely there must be the technology to
deal with this sort of situation in a non-lethal way.
It appears to be a bit like an army equipped only with clubs
and nuclear weapons - for the police, it seems that, if the
pepper spray isn't enough and your one and only baton gun
fails or doesn't exist, then all that is left is the
"nuclear" option. There might be the odd bits of other
equipment that could be used - but they aren't going to be
available quickly.
Is it worth spending large amounts of public money to
provide a national distribution of a range of options, to
reduce the very slight possibility of someone being shot
"unnecessarily"? So that, say, a couple of water
cannon-equipped vehicles can be brought to an incident as
quickly as a couple of guns? Plus a couple of baton round
guns, tazers, CS-gas guns, etc. What about all the training
and ownership costs for that lot?
A gun is relatively cheap, very reliable and needs very
little training to operate. Any idiot can use one.
You can argue individual cases and whether the individual
officers could have done things better. But, ultimately, if
the only things they have available to them is a pepper
spray or a gun - then there are going to be using their guns
more often than the situation really requires - had they
alternatives.
Of course most of us realise that if we threaten anyone with
what appears to be a lethal weapon, then the police will
kill us. So, generally, until recently, the only people at
risk from the police have been the mentally ill and
criminals, plus the very rare wrong person in the wrong
place at the wrong time. Both the former are well used to
being treated in much the same way. So, is there really much
point in the majority of the population paying more taxes to
give the police far more options for dealing with these rare
events, bearing in mind who are the likely victims?
IIUC, a bullet costs about 20p...
--
Sue
Marshall Rice
writes
And Cherie Groce (sp?).
--
Marshall Rice
(Put the bin out to email me)
Mr X
8?B?UGFsaW5kcuKYu21l?= <sb38...@hotmail.com.invalid> writes
snip insightful stuff
>Of course most of us realise that if we threaten anyone with
>what appears to be a lethal weapon, then the police will
>kill us. So, generally, until recently, the only people at
>risk from the police have been the mentally ill and
>criminals, plus the very rare wrong person in the wrong
>place at the wrong time.
However, with the Menezes shooting, the scenario has morphed itself into
something entirely more sinister.
You can be a normal, law-abiding citizen, peacefully and co-operatively
going about one's lawful business and without warning and without the
opportunity of surrender you can have your brains blown out in the most
brutal way by police dressed as thugs.
If you were to have described the Meneze scenario to people five or ten
years ago, I am sure 100% would say such a thing could not possibly
happen in England with the English Bobby and the English legal system.
--
Mr X
Uno Hoo!
"Mr X" <Mr...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:fzPLpHAj...@privacy.net...
Once again KX you show yourself for the fool you are. What is the point in
listing 30 shootings? Are you suggesting that these were all mistaken or
wrong? And what is the point of asking the question 'Everybody equal under
the law?" - because the answer is clearly 'No'. The police are allowed to
carry offensive weapons, exceed speed limits, go through red traffic lights,
park on yellow lines, - all of these acts that you could be prosecuted for.
So the police (and other groups) do *not* have to comply with many laws that
you do.
In the case of police shootings - again, the police have special privileges.
They are allowed to carry loaded weapons in public places - something that
you are not permitted to do.
Above all, however, armed police officers are volunteers. They put
themselves in danger to protect the public. Society asks them to their dirty
work and that should be taken into consideration when things go wrong. I'm
not suggesting that armed police should be able to go around blasting off
people's heads at random - but when they have been sent to potentially
dangerous incidents, and potentially put their lives on the line for the
public - then they deserve to be given the benefit of the doubt when things
go wrong. And every now and again things *will* go wrong. There is not a
shadow of a doubt that mistakes will happen again in the future - because
there is no way to prevent them from happening. What you should be thankful
for is that the number of accidental police shootings in the UK is very
small compared to many other countries where the police are routinely armed.
Kev
Peter McLelland
> In article <11lhcdh...@corp.supernews.com>, =?UTF-
> 8?B?UGFsaW5kcuKYu21l?= <sb38...@hotmail.com.invalid> writes
>
> snip insightful stuff
>
> >Of course most of us realise that if we threaten anyone with
> >what appears to be a lethal weapon, then the police will
> >kill us. So, generally, until recently, the only people at
> >risk from the police have been the mentally ill and
> >criminals, plus the very rare wrong person in the wrong
> >place at the wrong time.
>
> However, with the Menezes shooting, the scenario has morphed itself into
> something entirely more sinister.
Mainly because the world itself has become more sinister with people
prepared to blow themselves and many innocent people up in furtherance of
religio/political aims.
>
> You can be a normal, law-abiding citizen, peacefully and co-operatively
> going about one's lawful business and without warning and without the
> opportunity of surrender you can have your brains blown out in the most
> brutal way by police dressed as thugs.
It has happened once, and there is no real indicatio there is any
probability of it happening again
>
> If you were to have described the Meneze scenario to people five or ten
> years ago, I am sure 100% would say such a thing could not possibly
> happen in England with the English Bobby and the English legal system.
Ten years ago if you had suggested that a British citizen would walk onto a
tube or a bus and blow himself and all the other passengers near him up they
would have suggested you were mad.
Peter
Harry the Horse
> years ago, I am sure 100% would say such a thing could not possibly
> happen in England with the English Bobby and the English legal system.
>
if you dispute the the right of the police to assassinate anyone without
warning.
Uno Hoo!
That's just not true. The police *do* acknowledge that mistakes have been
made. What they do argue, quite correctly, that in these sort of situations
you can never ever ensure that mistakes will not be made. If you are an
armed police officer and you genuinely believe that you are facing an armed
and dangerous person, then if a hostile move is made you will act. If it
subsequently turns out that the suspect was *not* armed and dangerous then
clearly that is tragic - but the fact that a mistake has been made is no
reason to pillory the police. Society puts the gun in the police officers
hand and asks him to go and do its dirty work. Whilst it is entirely right
that armed officers should be held to account for their actions - they are
deserving of consideration because of the situation we put them in. I repeat
that the number of accidental shootings in the UK pales into insignificance
compared to many other countries where all police officers are routinely
armed.
Kev
Ian
I have to say I think anyone who even thinks of listing a man who
attacked police with a shotgun and a samurai sword as not being
justifiable, or even a man who fired directly at police ("but may have
been fake") in a list where he's implying the police were out of order,
may just have a little teensy bit of an agenda.
Just out of interest, if any of the people in these shootings had
actually killed someone standing behind the police, because they didn't
fire, what position would the authors (Robert Verkaik and Jason
Bennetto) take, do you think?
Again it comes back to earlier post I made. Some people think innocent
victims of crime are less important than criminal victims of the
police.
To be fair, I don't imagine the police like too many journalists
either, being as it is that they belong to third sector of society.
Those who can, do.
Those who can't do, teach.
Those who can't do anything, write about it.
Mr X
<peter.m...@selexnospam-sas.com> writes
big snip
>Ten years ago if you had suggested that a British citizen would walk onto a
>tube or a bus and blow himself and all the other passengers near him up they
>would have suggested you were mad.
Yes, I agree with all of that, thanks!
Is what we are seeing a conflict of opposing cultures that cannot be
resolved peacefully?
Or in other words what will happen when an irresistible force meets an
immovable object? (Western Culture v. Islamic Culture)
--
Mr X
Ian
Mr X wrote:
>
> If you were to have described the Meneze scenario to people five or ten
> years ago, I am sure 100% would say such a thing could not possibly
> happen in England with the English Bobby and the English legal system.
How many people would have concluded the same thing, if you'd proposed
the london bombings?
I'm sure an almost identical number of people would have agreed ten
years ago, that "In this enlightened age, we will never see wacko
religious nutters, who think genocide, slavery, and pubescent
sex-slavery are perfectly valid modes of behaviour against people not
of their religion, coming to london, to blow themselves up in the hope
of taking some of us with them."
Harry the Horse
news:1129891031.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
international terrorist and mass murderer?
Mr X
<k...@dropthisbigfoot.com> writes
>Once again KX you show yourself for the fool you are.
There is no need to be abusive just because *you* can't see the reason
for something being done.
> What is the point in listing 30 shootings?
I have a general policy of repeating most of the content from the web
urls I quote for the simple reasons that (a) many web urls are only
available for a short time and (b) it ensures that the sourced content
is archived in the usenet archives and (c) readers with text only can
read it.
And you may see from replies already made that a number of incidents are
missing from that list. And the replies posted so far have been
informative (present company excepted, of course).
I await your apology for your gratuitous abuse.
> Are you suggesting that these were all mistaken or
>wrong? And what is the point of asking the question 'Everybody equal under
>the law?" - because the answer is clearly 'No'.
In your opinion is answer is "no". Others may not agree with you.
You seem to want to control and censor things. uk.legal and usenet in
general does not work that way. Get over it.
This is a discussion group. I pose questions. Others pose questions,
etc, etc. That's how discussion groups work
--
Mr X
Marshall Rice
<peter.m...@selexnospam-sas.com> writes
>
>"Mr X" <Mr...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>news:ExztpEAT...@privacy.net...
>> In article <11lhcdh...@corp.supernews.com>, =?UTF-
>> 8?B?UGFsaW5kcuKYu21l?= <sb38...@hotmail.com.invalid> writes
>>
>> snip insightful stuff
>>
>> >Of course most of us realise that if we threaten anyone with
>> >what appears to be a lethal weapon, then the police will
>> >kill us. So, generally, until recently, the only people at
>> >risk from the police have been the mentally ill and
>> >criminals, plus the very rare wrong person in the wrong
>> >place at the wrong time.
>>
>> However, with the Menezes shooting, the scenario has morphed itself into
>> something entirely more sinister.
>
>Mainly because the world itself has become more sinister with people
>prepared to blow themselves and many innocent people up in furtherance of
>religio/political aims.
I'm not at all sure that it has.
Such people have been around for decades. All that has happened recently
is that our Government has adopted foreign policies which have caused
them to target our country and brought what was essentially a
middle-east problem (though originally of our making) to our doorsteps.
We are the ones who've changed the status quo in furtherance of our
religio-political aims. We're simply experiencing the entirely
predictable reaction to that.
If you stick your nose into a hornet's nest, you're going to get it
stung. The solution isn't to introduce ever more draconian and
oppressive anti-sting measures, it's simply to get your nose out again.
Rob
|||
|| Who would have believed ten years ago that our Prime Minister would
|| be a international terrorist and mass murderer?
Anyone who remembered Thatcher.
--
Rob
Peter McLelland
You may of course think that but I certainly don't, for a good number of
years there has been a small but influential group of very fundamental
islamiscists who have used the various conflicts in the Middle East to
further their cause.
The average Muslim is as peaceful as you and I, the problem is of course
they don't get themselves into the public eye al that often so many people
think that all Muslims are like the fanatics.
Of course if you act on your belief that all Muslims are fanatics then you
will probably find your belief is self fulfilling.
Peter
Peter McLelland
"Marshall Rice" <Mars...@marshallricebin.me.uk> wrote in message
news:xDq0obMs...@marshallricebin.me.uk...
I suspect that the fundamentalists would have got here eventually whatever,
at worst we have speeded them up a bit. They made the first step after all
with the World Trade centre.
Peter
Uno Hoo!
> In article <djafg7$s3q$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>, Uno Hoo!
> <k...@dropthisbigfoot.com> writes
>
>>Once again KX you show yourself for the fool you are.
>
> There is no need to be abusive just because *you* can't see the reason
> for something being done.
>
>> What is the point in listing 30 shootings?
>
> I have a general policy of repeating most of the content from the web
> urls I quote for the simple reasons that (a) many web urls are only
> available for a short time and (b) it ensures that the sourced content
> is archived in the usenet archives and (c) readers with text only can
> read it.
Fancy answer - but the real truth is that you list 30 shootings in order to
give the impression that the situation is horrendous and out of control.
>
> And you may see from replies already made that a number of incidents are
> missing from that list. And the replies posted so far have been
> informative (present company excepted, of course).
>
> I await your apology for your gratuitous abuse.
Then you'll be waiting a long time.
>
>> Are you suggesting that these were all mistaken or
>>wrong? And what is the point of asking the question 'Everybody equal under
>>the law?" - because the answer is clearly 'No'.
>
> In your opinion is answer is "no". Others may not agree with you.
You then snip the numerous examples I gave demonstrating quite clearly that
not everyone *is* equal under the law.
>
> You seem to want to control and censor things. uk.legal and usenet in
> general does not work that way. Get over it.
I'm not attempting to control or censor anything - I'm merely pointing out,
yet again, that your visceral hatred of the police shines out in every post.
>
> This is a discussion group. I pose questions.
More often you post insinuations, unfounded accusations, smears, untruths
and nonsense.
Kev
bigbrian
I think she'd be missing for the same reason as Stephen Waldorf - its
a list of people shot dead
Brian
Dave Baker
> 21 October 2005 07:46
>
> http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article321142.ece
>
> Shot dead by police 30. Officers convicted 0
>
> No charges for policemen who killed man carrying table leg
>
> By Robert Verkaik and Jason Bennetto
>
> Published: 21 October 2005
>
> The Attorney General was accused of bowing to political pressure last
> night after it emerged that no police officer will be prosecuted for
> shooting dead a man armed with a wooden table leg.
> interference in the decision. A spokesperson for the Attorney General
> said: "The decision not to prosecute was taken by an experienced Crown
> Prosecution Service lawyer on the advice of leading counsel and was
> reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Prosecutions. The
> Attorney General was consulted and agreed with the CPS decision. It is
> absolutely wrong and misleading to suggest that there was any political
> influence. It is standard practice for the DPP to consult the Attorney
> in high-profile or complex cases."
If it is standard practice to "consult" the AG then by definition the AG has
an input into the matter and can influence the final decision. If not then
why would anyone bother consulting him? So why the f**k didn't the AG tell
the CPS you must prosecute this to restore public confidence in the police,
especially in the light of the de Menezes shooting this year.
In fact the opposite seems to have occured and the Harry Stanley killers are
apparently being given a get out of jail free card to pave the way for the
de Menezes killers to be given the same in due course.
If an inquest jury can find enough evidence to reach a verdict of umlawful
killing BEFORE the further evidence came out that not only was there a
bullet hole in the back of his head but also ones in the shoulder of his
jacket then HTF can the CPS decide there isn't even enough evidence to even
put before a jury? You can be bloody sure they would in a similar case
involving a civilian shooter. It's clear as day to anyone else that these
two officers were either A) grossly negligent in the way they approached HS
in the open giving themselves no option but to shoot him if he so much as
turned round to see what they wanted and/or B) liars in court about the way
HS responded to them and that he was never facing them when he was killed.
I've been campaigning on here for several years now about the HS case and
frankly this final decision is a f**king disgrace. It's a kick in the teeth
to anyone who hopes that one day we really will have a police force that
truly both "protects and serves" as in the motto of the American one and
that is also accountable for their actions as everyone else is expected to
be.
Compare and contrast the case of the man who accidentally drove his land
rover and trailer off the motorway and onto a train track. Jailed for 6
years was it for the deaths of the passengers that resulted. No mens rea, no
intent to harm, a complete albeit tragic accident but he had to face the
consequences of his actions. Why do the police never have to do the same?
On another point, how the hell can the bullet holes in the shoulder of HS's
jacket have only come to light several years after the event? Who is
responsible for the negligent and incomplete initial investigation? Was
there in fact a cover up of part of the evidence to try to brush this under
the carpet from the start? It is inconceivable to me that HS's clothing
wasn't examined in minute detail from the start. Barry George's was and
resulted in his clearly unsafe conviction.
Anyway, rant over but I'm thoroughly pissed off by this and the next time I
see a copper burning by the side of the road I'll not bother crossing it to
piss on him to put the fire out.
--
Dave Baker
Mr X
<peter.m...@selexnospam-sas.com> writes
>"Mr X" <Mr...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>news:JGjekMAQ...@privacy.net...
>> In article <4358bf36$1...@glkas0286.greenlnk.net>, Peter McLelland
>> <peter.m...@selexnospam-sas.com> writes
>>
>> big snip
>>
>> >Ten years ago if you had suggested that a British citizen would walk onto
>a
>> >tube or a bus and blow himself and all the other passengers near him up
>they
>> >would have suggested you were mad.
>>
>> Yes, I agree with all of that, thanks!
>>
>> Is what we are seeing a conflict of opposing cultures that cannot be
>> resolved peacefully?
>>
>> Or in other words what will happen when an irresistible force meets an
>> immovable object? (Western Culture v. Islamic Culture)
>
>
>You may of course think that but I certainly don't, for a good number of
>years there has been a small but influential group of very fundamental
>islamiscists who have used the various conflicts in the Middle East to
>further their cause.
>
>The average Muslim is as peaceful as you and I, the problem is of course
>they don't get themselves into the public eye al that often so many people
>think that all Muslims are like the fanatics.
I don't think that.
>Of course if you act on your belief that all Muslims are fanatics
I didn't say that. I posed a question
> then you
>will probably find your belief is self fulfilling.
My best work friend is a very black Nigerian Muslim
And there are many Asian Muslims where I work. I don't actually see them
in those terms; they are just people to me. And nice, friendly people as
well.
--
Mr X
Mr X
<dra...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>Mr X wrote:
>>
>> If you were to have described the Meneze scenario to people five or ten
>> years ago, I am sure 100% would say such a thing could not possibly
>> happen in England with the English Bobby and the English legal system.
>
>How many people would have concluded the same thing, if you'd proposed
>the london bombings?
Apart from the suicide aspect, which I agree is new, London is well
accustomed to being bombed, 1st with the blitz and then by the IRA
Remember your modern history!
--
Mr X
Harry The Horse
defence (The Falklands)
Dave Baker
> In article <4358c81c$1...@glkas0286.greenlnk.net>, Peter McLelland
> <peter.m...@selexnospam-sas.com> writes
>
> >"Mr X" <Mr...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> >news:JGjekMAQ...@privacy.net...
> >> In article <4358bf36$1...@glkas0286.greenlnk.net>, Peter McLelland
> >> <peter.m...@selexnospam-sas.com> writes
>
> I didn't say that. I posed a question
>
> > then you
> >will probably find your belief is self fulfilling.
>
> My best work friend is a very black Nigerian Muslim
>
> And there are many Asian Muslims where I work. I don't actually see them
> in those terms; they are just people to me. And nice, friendly people as
> well.
You actually work ? Surely not, you spend all your time posting on here :)
--
Dave Baker
TD
"Peter McLelland" <peter.m...@selexnospam-sas.com> wrote in message
news:4358c896$1...@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
AIUI, they would claim we (US/UK) made the first step with the 'occupation'
of the Arabian Peninsula, and (their perception of ) our support for Israel
over the Palestinians.
The World Trade Centre bombing was in 1993. Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind,
claimed the Palestinian cause was his inspiration. The US also links him
with Al-Qaeda, which opposed our sending troops to Saudi Arabia in the run
up to the Gulf War in 1991, and has wanted the West (specifically the USA)
out of the Arabian Peninsula for years.
Mr X
<k...@dropthisbigfoot.com> writes
>"Mr X" <Mr...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>news:FmpdMSA6...@privacy.net...
>>> What is the point in listing 30 shootings?
>>
>> I have a general policy of repeating most of the content from the web
>> urls I quote for the simple reasons that (a) many web urls are only
>> available for a short time and (b) it ensures that the sourced content
>> is archived in the usenet archives and (c) readers with text only can
>> read it.
>
>Fancy answer - but the real truth is that you list 30 shootings in order to
>give the impression that the situation is horrendous and out of control.
That is your erroneous opinion formed by your own prejudices and hatred
I have told you my reasons why I posted as I did.
>I'm not attempting to control or censor anything - I'm merely pointing out,
>yet again, that your visceral hatred of the police shines out in every post.
In your own narrow-minded and prejudiced opinion which nobody else seems
to share.
>> This is a discussion group. I pose questions.
>
>More often you post insinuations, unfounded accusations, smears, untruths
>and nonsense.
You are very rapidly heading for my kill-file as the narrow-minded hate
you spout has no informational value whatsoever.
--
Mr X
Mike Ross
<vast and timeless snip>
>After yesterday's decision not to bring charges, the dead man's widow
>promised to "keep fighting" for justice for her husband. Irene Stanley,
>who is consulting lawyers about a possible challenge to the CPS decision
>in the High Court and the European Court of Human Rights, said: " What
>happened today was an injustice. I am devastated by it, though I half
>expected it. I am going to keep fighting but can't say more until I
>receive legal advice. I am also disgusted that I first heard of the CPS
>decision at 7.30am because of a leak to a tabloid newspaper."
So let her have a whip-round or find a pro-bono and mount a private
prosecution. There are enough people feel strongly about this case
that she would have the support she would need.
Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'
Mr X
<Pumar...@aol.com> writes
>Mr X <Mr...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>news:TXPIgDAh...@privacy.net...
>> And there are many Asian Muslims where I work. I don't actually see them
>> in those terms; they are just people to me. And nice, friendly people as
>> well.
>
>You actually work ? Surely not, you spend all your time posting on here :)
You are mistaking me for Mr Heney (who seems to be keeping his head
down..)
BTW What happened to Benedict White?
--
Mr X
Mr X
<dra...@hotmail.com> writes
>I have to say I think anyone who even thinks of listing a man who
>attacked police with a shotgun and a samurai sword as not being
>justifiable, or even a man who fired directly at police ("but may have
>been fake") in a list where he's implying the police were out of order,
>may just have a little teensy bit of an agenda.
You obviously didn't read the remark I made in my 2nd post to this
thread:
"I agree a lot of them are justifiable -- but those are not the cases
that cause the concerns!"
--
Mr X
Dave Baker
Dunno. I corresponded briefly with him once but yes he appears to have
vanished.
--
Dave Baker
Harry The Horse
> "Harry The Horse" <HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:11298807...@echo.uk.clara.net...
>> Mr X wrote:
>>> 21 October 2005 07:46
>>>
>>> http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article321142.ece
>>>
>>> Shot dead by police 30. Officers convicted 0
>>>
>> Though to be fair, most of those shootings were jusifiable. The
>> trouble with extremist apologists from police misbehaviour, such as
>> Kev, is that they refuse to acknowledge that any mistakes have been
>> made and simply blame the victim ('illegal immigrant', 'ex-bank
>> robber') or smear their critics as 'police haters'.
>
> That's just not true. The police *do* acknowledge that mistakes have
> been made. What they do argue, quite correctly, that in these sort of
> situations you can never ever ensure that mistakes will not be made.
> If you are an armed police officer and you genuinely believe that you
> are facing an armed and dangerous person, then if a hostile move is
> made you will act.
corrective action. Saying that there is nothing we could have done to have
avoided the situation is precisely the kind arrogance I am referring to. It
rules out there being anything in police procedure that could or should
chnage. It rules out whether the officers may have been culpable in putting
themselves in a position where an innocent action could be misconstrued as a
threat. It also rules out, as was the case with Harry Stanley, where police
testimony had it that he turned around to brandish the 'shotgun', in
contradiction to the forsenic evidence.
> If it subsequently turns out that the suspect was
> *not* armed and dangerous then clearly that is tragic - but the fact
> that a mistake has been made is no reason to pillory the police.
>
All cases should be taken on their merits but let us remember that it was
the police that tried to smear the character of Harry Stanley by leaking his
PNC records. Also the off the record 'briefings' were that allowed to pour
blame on Mr de Menezes for several days after his assassination. How about
not pilloring the victim in these cases.
> Society puts the gun in the police officers hand and asks him to go
> and do its dirty work. Whilst it is entirely right that armed
> officers should be held to account for their actions
>
And that's all I am asking for. I have never said that the two poilicemen
who shot Mr Stanley were 'murderers' or should necessarily be punished but
that they should be held to account. This now will never happen; we will
never know why they shot an innocent man and no lessons will be learned.
You may be satisfied with that outcome; I am not.
> - they are
> deserving of consideration because of the situation we put them in.
In other words, tacit immunity from prosecution. Lots of professionals are
put in life & death situations yetr they do appear to enjoy the same carte
blanche.
I
> repeat that the number of accidental shootings in the UK pales into
> insignificance compared to many other countries where all police
> officers are routinely armed.
So best not to increase their numbers.
Rifleman
since 1996 , I wonder if its all the killing of innocent people the cops are
doing ?
Having watched on many occasions police firearms " Experts" handling and
using guns, I am not suprised there has not been far more killings, my seven
year old has better SAA skills than most cops.
Harry The Horse
>
> Just out of interest, if any of the people in these shootings had
> actually killed someone standing behind the police, because they
> didn't fire, what position would the authors (Robert Verkaik and Jason
> Bennetto) take, do you think?
>
agenda. Suppose two journalists wrote a piece about excessive numbers of
deaths occurring in operations carried out by a surgeon. Do you think an
appropriate response to that article would be "what would be attitude of the
authors to deaths caused by operations not being carried out because he was
afraid to take the risk?" Do you think that argument would sway either the
police or the CPS when deciding to charge the surgeon?
Harry The Horse
>
> In fact the opposite seems to have occured and the Harry Stanley
> killers are apparently being given a get out of jail free card to
> pave the way for the de Menezes killers to be given the same in due
> course.
>
the insconsistency between the forensic evidence and the police tesimony.
However I am more inclided to believe your interpretation.
Harry The Horse
>
> It has happened once, and there is no real indicatio there is any
> probability of it happening again
>
Neither is there any probablity of an armed policeman facing down a suicide
bomber as envisioned by Kratos. Therefore the shoot to kill policy should
be abandoned.
Fred
"jason" <m...@mine.com> wrote in message
news:1129884022.91fda59ad74cfab9bf49cae52bd90817@teranews...
>
> "Fred" <Fr...@n0spam.c0m> wrote in message
> news:4358a253$0$23295$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
>>
>> "Harry The Horse" <HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:11298807...@echo.uk.clara.net...
>>> Mr X wrote:
>>>> 21 October 2005 07:46
>>>>
>>>> http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article321142.ece
>>>>
>>>> Shot dead by police 30. Officers convicted 0
>>>>
>>> Though to be fair, most of those shootings were jusifiable. The trouble
>>> with extremist apologists from police misbehaviour, such as Kev, is that
>>> they refuse to acknowledge that any mistakes have been made and simply
>>> blame the victim ('illegal immigrant', 'ex-bank robber') or smear their
>>> critics as 'police haters'.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> just can't seem to admit mistakes are made. You have to be an unarmed
>> man to be gunned down, in a hail of bullets whilst held down, in order
>> for the family to eventually get that apology. Not much chance for Harry
>> Stanley's family.
>
> Erm, it wasnt the police that did that one!!!!!!!!
>
I had always believed SO19 were a part of the Metropolitan Police. When did
that change?
hummingbird
mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>Mr X wrote:
>>
>> If you were to have described the Meneze scenario to people five or ten
>> years ago, I am sure 100% would say such a thing could not possibly
>> happen in England with the English Bobby and the English legal system.
>
>How many people would have concluded the same thing, if you'd proposed
>the london bombings?
Which year did the IRA blow up the Baltic Exchange?
Did people demand that policemen be armed to solve *that* problem?
--
"Turkey should join the EU 'because it is a European country'"
...Jack Straw 2nd October 2005 in Luxembourg.
BBC: "only 22% of citizens across Europe want Turkey to join the EU"
William Black
There are a number of Irishmen who'd dispute that.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
nick.coope...@virgin.net
> Mr X wrote:
> > 21 October 2005 07:46
> >
> > http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article321142.ece
> >
> > Shot dead by police 30. Officers convicted 0
> >
> Though to be fair, most of those shootings were jusifiable. The trouble
> with extremist apologists from police misbehaviour, such as Kev, is that
> they refuse to acknowledge that any mistakes have been made and simply blame
> the victim ('illegal immigrant', 'ex-bank robber') or smear their critics as
> 'police haters'.
Yes, to be honest I've very little sympathy in the cases where the
person shot was brandishing a firearm or what appeared to be a firearm.
That said, a few years back 'Panorama' highlighted a number of cases
in which the general management of the situation by the police was so
bad that effectively they engineered a situation in which they had no
option but to open fire. One example that springs to mind - although I
can't recall the name of the dead man - was when the suspect came out
of a hours after a short siege (several hours) brandishing a firearm,
police opened fire "to protect members of the public in the vicinity,"
who were only there because the police had failed to properly evacuated
and cordon off the immediate vicinity in the first place.
Harry The Horse
> "Harry The Horse" <HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:112989470...@sabbath.news.uk.clara.net...
>> Rob wrote:
>>> Harry the Horse wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>> Who would have believed ten years ago that our Prime Minister
>>>>> would be a international terrorist and mass murderer?
>>>
>>> Anyone who remembered Thatcher.
>>>
>> I have no liking for Thatcher but the only war she fought was one of
>> self defence (The Falklands)
>
> There are a number of Irishmen who'd dispute that.
>
mass slaughter that Blair has presided over in Iraq. If you were comparing
British policy towards Ireland in the nineteenth century then I would
concede your point.
Mike G
"Harry The Horse" <HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:112989470...@sabbath.news.uk.clara.net...
A war of her own making IMO, so I don't believe that it can be claimed that
it was one purely of self defence. It could have been avoided, had
intelligence regarding Argentinas intentions been acted upon. By not making
it clear what our response would be to any attempt at a military takeover by
them, Thatcher allowed the war to happen.
The fact that it was, makes it appear that it could have been as much a
political decision as one of necessity after occupation had been allowed to
happen.
It came at a particularly opportune time for Thatcher and her supporters, as
it was at a time when she was under considerable criticism in the House for
decisions she'd made whilst in office. The war effectively meant those
criticisms could be ignored.
Mike.
William Black
So how many people need to be killed before it's a war?
Or is it people per year?
A war is a war is a war.
Your trying to pretend that Thatcher's war in Ireland wasn't a war doesn't
make it so.
Or was that hotel being blown up in Brighton down to mice?
Uno Hoo!
Ever since the police began carrying firearms there has been a shoot to kill
policy. If an armed officer considers that the time has come to open fire -
then he shoots to kill.
Kev
Harry The Horse
> "Harry The Horse" <HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:11299030...@demeter.uk.clara.net...
>> William Black wrote:
>>> "Harry The Horse" <HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:112989470...@sabbath.news.uk.clara.net...
>>>> Rob wrote:
>>>>> Harry the Horse wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Who would have believed ten years ago that our Prime Minister
>>>>>>> would be a international terrorist and mass murderer?
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone who remembered Thatcher.
>>>>>
>>>> I have no liking for Thatcher but the only war she fought was one
>>>> of self defence (The Falklands)
>>>
>>> There are a number of Irishmen who'd dispute that.
>>>
>> Our actions in Ireland in the last 20 years don't remotely compare
>> to the mass slaughter that Blair has presided over in Iraq. If you
>> were comparing British policy towards Ireland in the nineteenth
>> century then I would concede your point.
>
> So how many people need to be killed before it's a war?
>
murder?
Harry The Horse
> "Harry The Horse" <HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:112989470...@sabbath.news.uk.clara.net...
>> Rob wrote:
>>> Harry the Horse wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>> Who would have believed ten years ago that our Prime Minister
>>>>> would be a international terrorist and mass murderer?
>>>
>>> Anyone who remembered Thatcher.
>>>
>> I have no liking for Thatcher but the only war she fought was one of
>> self defence (The Falklands)
>
> A war of her own making IMO, so I don't believe that it can be
> claimed that it was one purely of self defence. It could have been
> avoided, had intelligence regarding Argentinas intentions been acted
> upon. By not making it clear what our response would be to any
> attempt at a military takeover by them, Thatcher allowed the war to
> happen.
>
for wholly cynical and dishonest reasons.
> The fact that it was, makes it appear that it could have been as much
> a political decision as one of necessity after occupation had been
> allowed to happen.
> It came at a particularly opportune time for Thatcher and her
> supporters, as it was at a time when she was under considerable
> criticism in the House for decisions she'd made whilst in office. The
> war effectively meant those criticisms could be ignored.
>
I don't believe Thatcher deliberately engineered a war to get her out of
domestic trouble. If the attempt to recapture the Falklands had failed she
would have been out on her ear.
William Black
> William Black wrote:
> >> Our actions in Ireland in the last 20 years don't remotely compare
> >> to the mass slaughter that Blair has presided over in Iraq. If you
> >> were comparing British policy towards Ireland in the nineteenth
> >> century then I would concede your point.
> >
> > So how many people need to be killed before it's a war?
> >
> And how many civilians have to be killed before it is counted as mass
> murder?
I seem to remember reading somewhere that it's three...
Rob
If she did I expect the State would just step in and drop it.
--
Rob
AlanG
<peter.m...@selexnospam-sas.com> wrote:
>
>"Mr X" <Mr...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>news:ExztpEAT...@privacy.net...
>> In article <11lhcdh...@corp.supernews.com>, =?UTF-
>> 8?B?UGFsaW5kcuKYu21l?= <sb38...@hotmail.com.invalid> writes
>>
>> snip insightful stuff
>>
>> >Of course most of us realise that if we threaten anyone with
>> >what appears to be a lethal weapon, then the police will
>> >kill us. So, generally, until recently, the only people at
>> >risk from the police have been the mentally ill and
>> >criminals, plus the very rare wrong person in the wrong
>> >place at the wrong time.
>>
>> However, with the Menezes shooting, the scenario has morphed itself into
>> something entirely more sinister.
>
>Mainly because the world itself has become more sinister with people
>prepared to blow themselves and many innocent people up in furtherance of
>religio/political aims.
>>
>> You can be a normal, law-abiding citizen, peacefully and co-operatively
>> going about one's lawful business and without warning and without the
>> opportunity of surrender you can have your brains blown out in the most
>> brutal way by police dressed as thugs.
>
>It has happened once, and there is no real indicatio there is any
>probability of it happening again
It has happened twice.
The fact that political pressure has been brought to bear to stop any
prosecution in one case only increases the probability of it happening
again.
>>
>> If you were to have described the Meneze scenario to people five or ten
>> years ago, I am sure 100% would say such a thing could not possibly
>> happen in England with the English Bobby and the English legal system.
>
>Ten years ago if you had suggested that a British citizen would walk onto a
>tube or a bus and blow himself and all the other passengers near him up they
>would have suggested you were mad.
>
Why?
British citizens starved themselves to death for a political cause.
Some of their comrades planted bombs that blew other british citizens
to bits for that same cause. It doesn't take a wild leap of
imagination to suppose a suicide bomber may arise sooner or later.
Uno Hoo!
> Uno Hoo! wrote:
>> "Harry The Horse" <HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:11298807...@echo.uk.clara.net...
>>> Mr X wrote:
>>>> 21 October 2005 07:46
>>>>
>>>> http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article321142.ece
>>>>
>>>> Shot dead by police 30. Officers convicted 0
>>>>
>>> Though to be fair, most of those shootings were jusifiable. The
>>> trouble with extremist apologists from police misbehaviour, such as
>>> Kev, is that they refuse to acknowledge that any mistakes have been
>>> made and simply blame the victim ('illegal immigrant', 'ex-bank
>>> robber') or smear their critics as 'police haters'.
>>
>> That's just not true. The police *do* acknowledge that mistakes have
>> been made. What they do argue, quite correctly, that in these sort of
>> situations you can never ever ensure that mistakes will not be made.
>> If you are an armed police officer and you genuinely believe that you
>> are facing an armed and dangerous person, then if a hostile move is
>> made you will act.
> That is not 'acknowledging a mistake' as you have ruled out there being
> any corrective action. Saying that there is nothing we could have done to
> have avoided the situation is precisely the kind arrogance I am referring
> to. It rules out there being anything in police procedure that could or
> should chnage.
Tell me. If you pulled out of a junction tomorrow without seeing an
approaching motorcyclist - and caused his death. Could you 'learn' from this
experience so that you could ensure that such a thing *never* happened
again?
It rules out whether the officers may have been culpable in putting
> themselves in a position where an innocent action could be misconstrued as
> a threat. It also rules out, as was the case with Harry Stanley, where
> police testimony had it that he turned around to brandish the 'shotgun',
> in contradiction to the forsenic evidence.
That particular forensic evidence has now been overturned by new forensic
evidence. That is why no action is being taken against the officers.
>
>> If it subsequently turns out that the suspect was
>> *not* armed and dangerous then clearly that is tragic - but the fact
>> that a mistake has been made is no reason to pillory the police.
>>
> All cases should be taken on their merits but let us remember that it was
> the police that tried to smear the character of Harry Stanley by leaking
> his PNC records. Also the off the record 'briefings' were that allowed to
> pour blame on Mr de Menezes for several days after his assassination. How
> about not pilloring the victim in these cases.
I think you will find when the IPCC enquiry is released that most of the
misinformation about Menezes and his clothing and actions came from civilian
witnesses who misunderstood what they had seen and spoke to the press. The
police officers pursuing Menezes vaulted the barriers, for example (because
they didn't have tickets) and if there were several of them then it would
have been easy for a member of the public to misconstrue what they were
seeing. Ian Blair has stated that he regrets that the police did not act
sooner to correct some of the misinformation that was being bandied about. I
don't know, of course, but I suspect you will find that this misinformation
did not originate from the police.
>> Society puts the gun in the police officers hand and asks him to go
>> and do its dirty work. Whilst it is entirely right that armed
>> officers should be held to account for their actions
>>
> And that's all I am asking for. I have never said that the two poilicemen
> who shot Mr Stanley were 'murderers' or should necessarily be punished but
> that they should be held to account. This now will never happen; we will
> never know why they shot an innocent man and no lessons will be learned.
> You may be satisfied with that outcome; I am not.
But 'being held to account' means being investigated. You cannot put people
on trial if there is insufficient evidence to support proceedings!
>
>> - they are
>> deserving of consideration because of the situation we put them in.
> In other words, tacit immunity from prosecution.
Not at all - but consideration must be given to the extremely difficult task
that society asks them to carry out in their name. It's not a question of
immunity - rather a recognition of the task they are being asked to carry
out.
Lots of professionals are
> put in life & death situations yetr they do appear to enjoy the same carte
> blanche.
Not many are placed in the situation of having to make split second life and
death decisions.
>
> I
>> repeat that the number of accidental shootings in the UK pales into
>> insignificance compared to many other countries where all police
>> officers are routinely armed.
> So best not to increase their numbers.
Indeed.
Kev
Uno Hoo!
In that case - why list them?
Kev
Mike G
I'm not so sure. I don't think initially it was thaught that the war would
develop into the bloody confrontation that it turned out to be. Maybe at the
time the decision was taken, it was thaught that the 'Argies' would just
give up and go away, without too much fuss. Taking pressure off Thatcher in
the meantime. Once committed though, there was no option but to take it to
it's inevitable conclusion.
Given the difference between the military capacity of Argentina at the time,
compared to ours, I don't believe failure was even considered.
Mike.
bigbrian
Tell me. If you rested your hand, with a loaded gun in it, on a bed
while you were looking under it, and accidentally discharged the
weapon, killing a five year old boy who, unbeknown to you, was lying
in the bed, could you 'learn' from this experience so that you could
ensure that such a thing *never* happened again?
Brian
Paul Robson
>
> It rules out whether the officers may have been culpable in putting
>> themselves in a position where an innocent action could be misconstrued as
>> a threat. It also rules out, as was the case with Harry Stanley, where
>> police testimony had it that he turned around to brandish the 'shotgun',
>> in contradiction to the forsenic evidence.
>
> That particular forensic evidence has now been overturned by new forensic
> evidence. That is why no action is being taken against the officers.
Oh yes, the hole in the back of his head and the back of his coat were
caused by him being shot from the front.
Paul Robson
> been made. What they do argue, quite correctly, that in these sort of
>situations you can never ever ensure that mistakes will not be made.
> If you are an armed police officer and you genuinely believe that you
> are facing an armed and dangerous person, then if a hostile move is
> made you will act.
Any chance of these excuses being allowed for anyone else other than
Policemen ?
Thought not.
AlanG
>
>Mr X wrote:
>> 21 October 2005 07:46
>>
>> http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article321142.ece
>>
>> Shot dead by police 30. Officers convicted 0
>>
>> No charges for policemen who killed man carrying table leg
>>
>> By Robert Verkaik and Jason Bennetto
>>
>> Published: 21 October 2005
>>
>> The Attorney General was accused of bowing to political pressure last
>> night after it emerged that no police officer will be prosecuted for
>> shooting dead a man armed with a wooden table leg.
>>
>> The killing of Harry Stanley, a painter and decorator from east London,
>> raises concern about whether the criminal justice system is capable of
>> holding police officers to account for shooting dead members of the
>> public. In the past 12 years no police officer has been successfully
>> prosecuted for any of the 30 fatalities caused by police marksmen.
>>
>> Concern over police officers' accountability for their use of firearms
>> has been heightened by the controversy surrounding the shooting of Jean
>> Charles de Menezes at Stockwell Underground station in London on 22
>> July. The Brazilian was shot dead after marksmen wrongly suspected he
>> was a suicide bomber.
>>
>> Last night, human rights campaigners accused the Crown Prosecution
>> Service of giving the police immunity in gun death cases, while Mr
>> Stanley's widow said she was "devastated" at the outcome of the inquiry.
>>
>> The Justice for Harry Stanley campaign said: "The CPS and the Attorney
>> General have illustrated very clearly that the police not only have the
>> right to shoot to kill, but they will be afforded total immunity from
>> prosecution. This is clearly the most serious attack not just on the
>> Stanley family but a warning to all the other families whose loved ones
>> are shot dead, while going about their everyday business."
>>
>> Lawyers for the family and the group Inquest said they suspected the
>> Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, may have influenced the decision not
>> to bring charges against any officers.
>>
>> Daniel Machover, who represents Mr Stanley's widow, Irene, said he had
>> "genuine concern that Lord Goldsmith's input may have influenced or
>> determined the final decision". He added: "What we know is that there
>> was dialogue between the DPP and the Attorney General and a lot of to-
>> ing and fro-ing before the family and police were told of the decision."
>>
>> Deborah Coles, a co-director of Inquest, said: "You must ask whether or
>> not there is a political policy at play in these cases and whether there
>> was a political context in which this particular decision was made."
>>
>> Last night, the Attorney General denied there was any political
>> interference in the decision. A spokesperson for the Attorney General
>> said: "The decision not to prosecute was taken by an experienced Crown
>> Prosecution Service lawyer on the advice of leading counsel and was
>> reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Prosecutions. The
>> Attorney General was consulted and agreed with the CPS decision. It is
>> absolutely wrong and misleading to suggest that there was any political
>> influence. It is standard practice for the DPP to consult the Attorney
>> in high-profile or complex cases."
>>
>> The death of Mr Stanley, 46, from Hackney, east London, has become one
>> of the most controversial police shootings of modern times. The unarmed
>> father-of-three was shot in the head and hand on a London street in
>> September 1999 while walking home after a table leg he had in a bag was
>> mistaken for a gun.
>>
>> Chief Inspector Neil Sharman, 42, and PC Kevin Fagan, 38, firearms
>> officers with the Metropolitan Police, were arrested in June this year
>> on suspicion of murder, gross negligence, manslaughter and conspiracy to
>> pervert the course of justice, and bailed in connection with the case.
>> The arrests followed new forensic evidence that contradicted the
>> officers' accounts of the shooting and indicated that Mr Stanley was
>> shot while facing away from the marksmen. The two officers told an
>> inquest in 2004 that Mr Stanley had turned around "in a slow,
>> deliberate, fluid motion" and pointed his wrapped-up table leg at PC
>> Fagan, adopting a classic firing posture. This prompted Ch Insp Sharman
>> to open fire, hitting Mr Stanley in the head.
>>
>> A forensic scientist found that Mr Stanley had been shot in the rear
>> side of his head - which indicated that he was not facing the officers
>> at the point of impact. A bullet hole had also gone through the back of
>> Mr Stanley's jacket, through the shoulder, suggesting he had his back
>> turned on the officers.
>>
>> Mr Stanley was shot dead after someone telephoned the police and told
>> them they had seen an Irishman with a sawn-off shotgun in a bag. Mr
>> Stanley, who was originally from Lanarkshire, Scotland, was carrying a
>> blue plastic bag with a coffee-table leg inside, which had been repaired
>> by his brother.
>>
>> The inquest returned a verdict of unlawful killing, which was overturned
>> in the High Court. The CPS, however, decided yesterday that there was
>> "insufficient evidence" to bring any charges against the officers. Two
>> specialists, one hired by the Police Federation, the other by Surrey
>> Police, the investigating force, said the forensic evidence did not
>> prove that the officers were lying.
>>
>> In a statement issued yesterday the CPS said there was not enough
>> evidence to rebut the officers' accounts that they were acting in self-
>> defence. The CPS did, however, say it was "arguable that the officers'
>> haste and lack of planning led them to breach their duty of care to Mr
>> Stanley and cause his death".
>>
>> After yesterday's decision not to bring charges, the dead man's widow
>> promised to "keep fighting" for justice for her husband. Irene Stanley,
>> who is consulting lawyers about a possible challenge to the CPS decision
>> in the High Court and the European Court of Human Rights, said: " What
>> happened today was an injustice. I am devastated by it, though I half
>> expected it. I am going to keep fighting but can't say more until I
>> receive legal advice. I am also disgusted that I first heard of the CPS
>> decision at 7.30am because of a leak to a tabloid newspaper."
>>
>> Ms Coles said public confidence in the criminal justice system would be
>> severely undermined. She said it now appeared that British justice "
>> puts police officers above the law". She added: "At a time when there is
>> a massive increase of the number of armed police on our streets, it is
>> imperative that the public have confidence in their ability to act
>> professionally and safely."
>>
I recall some of these.
>> The 30 victims
>> JEAN CHARLES DE MENEZES, 27
Still ongoing investigation but the investigation was initially
hampered by the police.
>>
>> Shot dead by police on 22 July 2005 after being mistaken for a suicide
>> bomber.
>>
>> PROSECUTIONS: Officers suspended until the investigation result is
>> published.
>>
>> PHILIP PROUT, 53
>>
>> Shot by a police marksman after a baton gun failed to fire, in Cornwall
>> in May 2004.
>>
>> PROSECUTIONS: The CPS decided there was insufficient evidence to charge
>> the officers.
>>
>> DEREK BENNETT, 29
>>
>> In July 2001, police shot him four times in the back in Brixton, south
>> London. He had been holding a gun-shaped cigarette lighter to a man's
>> head.
I remember that one. Quite justifiable IMO
>>
>> PROSECUTIONS: CPS found insufficient evidence to prosecute.
>>
>> JAMES ASHLEY, 39
>>
>> Shot during a police drugs raid on his house in Sussex in 1998. Ashley
>> was unarmed, naked and with his girlfriend.
>>
>> PROSECUTIONS: Officer who fired the shot found not guilty of murder or
>> manslaughter.
Quite disgusting. Smashing your way into someones home then shooting
him dead is in no way justified.
>>
>> CRAIG KING, 32
>>
>> Bouncer from Greater Manchester was shot by police on 11 September this
>> year.
>>
>> PROSECUTIONS: No officers have been charged.
>>
>> JOHN SCOTT, 42
>>
>> Killed in Northumberland in July after he fired a gun as police broke up
>> a disturbance.
>>
>> PROSECUTIONS: None
>>
>> AZELLE RODNEY, 24
>>
>> Shot in Edgware in April after bullets were fired into car of suspected
>> drug dealers.
>>
>> PROSECUTIONS: None
>>
>> SIMON MURDEN, 26
>>
>> Killed in Hull in March after brandishing a sword.
>>
>> PROSECUTIONS: None
>>
>> KEITH LARKINS, 33
>>
>> Former mental patient shot in June at Heathrow after brandishing a blank
>> pistol at police.
>>
>> PROSECUTIONS: None
>>
>> DAVID EWIN, 38
>>
>> Former robber killed in London in March 1995 in a stolen car.
>>
>> PROSECUTIONS: Officer tried and cleared of murder.
>>
>> NICHOLAS PALMER, 23
>>
>> Shot by police in south London in 2004. Failed to answer bail after
>> arrest on arms offences.
>>
>> PROSECUTIONS: None
>>
>> COLIN O'CONNOR, 39
>>
>> Thief shot in 2003 in Bedfordshire after being caught with a pistol in a
>> stolen Jaguar.
>>
>> PROSECUTION: None
>>
>> FOSTA THOMPSON, 20
>>
>> Jamaican shot in Bristol after defying police in 2002.
>>
>> PROSECUTION: None
>>
>> JASON GIFFORD, 27
>>
>> Shot in 2002 in Aylesbury after he confronted officers with a sword and
>> shotgun
>>
>> PROSECUTION: None
>>
>> MICHAEL MALSBURY, 62
>>
>> shot in 2001 running out of his house in Harrow firing at police.
>>
>> PROSECUTION: None
>>
>> STEVEN DICKSON, 30
>>
>> Shot in 2001 waving a home-made shotgun in Derbyshire.
>>
>> PROSECUTION: None
>>
>> ANDREW KERNAN, 37
>>
>> Schizophrenic with sword shot in Liverpool in 2001.
I remember this one too. Another case where police aggression and
ignoring the advice of the family led to his death.
>>
>> PROSECUTION: None
>>
>> PATRICK O'DONNELL, 19
>>
>> Killed in 2000 after taking his mother and girlfriend hostage in north
>> London.
>>
>> PROSECUTION: None
>>
>> KIRK DAVIES, 30
>>
>> Former soldier was shot in West Yorkshire in September 2000 after he
>> threatened an officer with an air rifle.
Remember that one too. The air rifle was so obviously an air rifle to
anyone who knew the slightest thing about guns that the killing was
not justified
>>
>> PROSECUTION: None
>>
>> HARRY STANLEY, 46
>>
>> Shot by police in 1999.
>>
>> PROSECUTION: None
Only because the police perverted the course of justice and the
politicians and civil servants complied. Can anyone say 'praetorian
guard'?
>>
>> DEREK BATEMAN, 47
>>
>> Shot in Surrey in 1999 after girlfriend told officers he was armed and
>> was threatening to shoot her, or himself.
>>
>> PROSECUTION: None
>>
>> ANTONY KITTS, 20
>>
>> Shot in Falmouth in 1999, threatening police with an air rifle thought
>> to be a shotgun.
>>
>> PROSECUTIONS: None
>>
>> MICHAEL FITZGERALD, 32
>>
>> Shot in Bedford in 1998 aiming a replica Colt 45 at police.
>>
>> PROSECUTIONS: None
>>
>> DAVID HOWELL, 41
>>
>> Psychiatric patient shot in 1996 at a Co-op supermarket.
>>
>> PROSECUTIONS: None
>>
>> DIARMUID O'NEILL, 27
>>
>> Unarmed IRA suspect shot in raid in west London.
>>
>> PROSECUTIONS: None
>>
>> JAMES BRADY, 21
>>
>> Shot in 1995 in police ambush at village near Newcastle.
>>
>> PROSECUTIONS: None
>>
>> ROBERT DIXON, 45
>>
>> Wild West fan fired at police, but gun may have been replica.
That was another case where his family told the police he had a blank
firing replica but were ignored so some cop could put a notch on his
gun. The guy was as drunk as a skunk at the time.
>>
>> PROSECUTIONS: None
>>
>> DAVID STONE, 35
>>
>> Killed in 1993, carrying pistol in north London.
>>
>> PROSECUTIONS: None
>>
>> IAN HAY, 39
>>
>> Mentally ill farmer shot in Devon in 1993 after police tried to
>> investigate gunshot reports.
>>
>> PROSECUTIONS: None
>>
>> DAVID LUCKHURST, 46
>>
>> Publican in Hertfordshire shot in 1993 after he fired rifle at officers
>> in siege at home.
>>
>> PROSECUTIONS: None
>> ========================================================================
>>
>> I think this demonstrates how thoroughly corrupt the system is.
>>
>> Everybody equal under the law? You must be joking!
>> --
>> Mr X
>
>
>
>I have to say I think anyone who even thinks of listing a man who
>attacked police with a shotgun and a samurai sword as not being
>justifiable, or even a man who fired directly at police ("but may have
>been fake") in a list where he's implying the police were out of order,
>may just have a little teensy bit of an agenda.
I'd have to agree.
But some of those cases are reasons to get justifiably concerned about
an apparent police immunity from the law. There are a couple of cases
in that list where the police ignored advice from the families and
deliberately put themselves in a position where they would be
justified in killing.
The handling of the Stanley case alone deserves the description of
'corruption'.
>
>
>Just out of interest, if any of the people in these shootings had
>actually killed someone standing behind the police, because they didn't
>fire, what position would the authors (Robert Verkaik and Jason
>Bennetto) take, do you think?
In quite a few of those cases the police would have been better of
keeping their distance and waiting to see if the armed person would
calm down. I understand this is now done.
>
>Again it comes back to earlier post I made. Some people think innocent
>victims of crime are less important than criminal victims of the
>police.
At least 2 of those victims were not criminals and not involved in
anything against the law. The list left out John Shorthouse. A child
murdered by a policeman when the police raided his home.
>
>To be fair, I don't imagine the police like too many journalists
>either, being as it is that they belong to third sector of society.
>
>Those who can, do.
>Those who can't do, teach.
>Those who can't do anything, write about it.
AlanG
<HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>Who would have believed ten years ago that our Prime Minister would be a
>international terrorist and mass murderer?
>
Like Margaret Thatcher?
Razor
"Harry The Horse" <HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:112989589...@sabbath.news.uk.clara.net...
> Uno Hoo! wrote:
>> "Harry The Horse" <HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:11298807...@echo.uk.clara.net...
>>>> 21 October 2005 07:46
>>>>
>>>> http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article321142.ece
>>>>
>>>> Shot dead by police 30. Officers convicted 0
>>>>
>>> trouble with extremist apologists from police misbehaviour, such as
>>> Kev, is that they refuse to acknowledge that any mistakes have been
>>> made and simply blame the victim ('illegal immigrant', 'ex-bank
>>> robber') or smear their critics as 'police haters'.
>>
>> been made. What they do argue, quite correctly, that in these sort of
>> situations you can never ever ensure that mistakes will not be made.
>> If you are an armed police officer and you genuinely believe that you
>> are facing an armed and dangerous person, then if a hostile move is
>> made you will act.
> any corrective action. Saying that there is nothing we could have done to
> have avoided the situation is precisely the kind arrogance I am referring
> to. It rules out there being anything in police procedure that could or
> in putting themselves in a position where an innocent action could be
> Stanley, where police testimony had it that he turned around to brandish
> the 'shotgun', in contradiction to the forsenic evidence.
>
>> *not* armed and dangerous then clearly that is tragic - but the fact
>> that a mistake has been made is no reason to pillory the police.
>>
> All cases should be taken on their merits but let us remember that it was
> the police that tried to smear the character of Harry Stanley by leaking
> his PNC records. Also the off the record 'briefings' were that allowed to
> pour blame on Mr de Menezes for several days after his assassination. How
> about not pilloring the victim in these cases.
>
>> and do its dirty work. Whilst it is entirely right that armed
>> officers should be held to account for their actions
>>
> And that's all I am asking for. I have never said that the two poilicemen
> who shot Mr Stanley were 'murderers' or should necessarily be punished but
> that they should be held to account. This now will never happen; we will
> never know why they shot an innocent man and no lessons will be learned.
> You may be satisfied with that outcome; I am not.
>
>> deserving of consideration because of the situation we put them in.
> carte blanche.
>
>> repeat that the number of accidental shootings in the UK pales into
>> insignificance compared to many other countries where all police
>> officers are routinely armed.
> So best not to increase their numbers.
>
'And that's all I am asking for. I have never said that the two poilicemen
> who shot Mr Stanley were 'murderers' or should necessarily be punished but
> that they should be held to account'.
And what would you like to see happen to them?
>
Razor
"Rifleman" <steve....@ctinternet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:djall3$8n$1...@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>I not with interest that violent crime is up again as it has every year
>since 1996 , I wonder if its all the killing of innocent people the cops
>are doing ?
>
> Having watched on many occasions police firearms " Experts" handling and
> using guns, I am not suprised there has not been far more killings, my
> seven year old has better SAA skills than most cops.
Well as I have told you before, join up and shows us how good you are?
>
>
Razor
"Mike Ross" <mi...@corestore.org> wrote in message
news:1129895024.9c5456ad4a34d44aaf503511e3f7a998@teranews...> <vast and timeless snip>
>
>>After yesterday's decision not to bring charges, the dead man's widow
>>promised to "keep fighting" for justice for her husband. Irene Stanley,
>>who is consulting lawyers about a possible challenge to the CPS decision
>>in the High Court and the European Court of Human Rights, said: " What
>>happened today was an injustice. I am devastated by it, though I half
>>expected it. I am going to keep fighting but can't say more until I
>>receive legal advice. I am also disgusted that I first heard of the CPS
>>decision at 7.30am because of a leak to a tabloid newspaper."
>
> prosecution. There are enough people feel strongly about this case
> that she would have the support she would need.
>
> --
> http://www.corestore.org
> 'As I walk along these shores
> I am the history within'
What a great idea Mr X will put a lump in I know he will, perhaps he can be
treasurer?
Paul Robson
> But some of those cases are reasons to get justifiably concerned about
> an apparent police immunity from the law. There are a couple of cases
> in that list where the police ignored advice from the families and
> deliberately put themselves in a position where they would be
> justified in killing.
It's a bit like the miscarriages of justice and the endless deaths in
custody.
It's not that case A or case B or cop C or cop D gets off.
It's that *no-one* is ever successfully prosecuted, and minimal efforts
are made to find evidence.
Harry The Horse
>
> 'And that's all I am asking for. I have never said that the two
> poilicemen
>> who shot Mr Stanley were 'murderers' or should necessarily be
>> punished but that they should be held to account'.
>
> And what would you like to see happen to them?
>
manslaughter. If convicted be sent down for a very long stretch; if
acquitted, then released. You know, justice being seen to be done.
Graham Murray
> AIUI, they would claim we (US/UK) made the first step with the 'occupation'
> of the Arabian Peninsula, and (their perception of ) our support for Israel
> over the Palestinians.
I thought that it went back a lot further than that, at least to the
crusades in the middle ages, and maybe even as far as Isaac and
Ishmael in old testament times.
Mike G
"Uno Hoo!" <k...@dropthisbigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:djb3a0$isv$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Harry The Horse" <HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:112989589...@sabbath.news.uk.clara.net...
> Lots of professionals are
> > put in life & death situations yetr they do appear to enjoy the same
carte
> > blanche.
>
> Not many are placed in the situation of having to make split second life
and
> death decisions.
From what I recall, many of the shootings have not involved split second
life or death situations.
In some cases, I've got the impression that shooting was made the first
option rather than the last. Maybe the rules about when shooting is
justified, need revising.
Mike.
Rifleman
"Razor" <sp...@jodrell.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:435917a7$1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> where I came across the cowboy cops.
>
AlanG
A section of society who are above the law.
Paul Robson
I wonder what happened to the very common suggestion "let the jury decide"
which seems rather popular.
joe
> I have to say I think anyone who even thinks of listing a man who
> attacked police with a shotgun and a samurai sword as not being
> justifiable, or even a man who fired directly at police ("but may have
> been fake") in a list where he's implying the police were out of
> order, may just have a little teensy bit of an agenda.
I would agree with that sentiment. In todays society when police have a
truncheon or a gun, when threatened, they have every right to shoot.
The investigation afterward should absolve them of any blame. However,
when some people post a few examples of non investigated shootings,
they are told, "it's only a rare occurence." By citing a long list,
they can prove shootings are more commonplace than a couple, and that
of all the shootings, some are justified, some are not, and some are
open to debate. ALL should be investigated by a truely independant
party.
> Just out of interest, if any of the people in these shootings had
> actually killed someone standing behind the police, because they
> didn't fire, what position would the authors (Robert Verkaik and Jason
> Bennetto) take, do you think?
The police should have cleared the scene?
> Again it comes back to earlier post I made. Some people think innocent
> victims of crime are less important than criminal victims of the
> police.
True.
> To be fair, I don't imagine the police like too many journalists
> either, being as it is that they belong to third sector of society.
And some (not many) are ignoring the order to keep schtum.
During the miners strike, look at the police driven journalism that
existed, for instance.
joe
Because someone would have asked why he snipped the cut and paste?
Maxwell Turnbull
> Tell me. If you rested your hand, with a loaded gun in it, on a bed
> while you were looking under it, and accidentally discharged the
> weapon, killing a five year old boy who, unbeknown to you, was lying
> in the bed, could you 'learn' from this experience so that you could
> ensure that such a thing *never* happened again?
>
> Brian
>If a police officer was stupid enough to perform such an action without
first checking that the area to be examined was clear of civilians, surely
some form of
disciplinary action would have to be taken against that officer.
Maxwell Turnbull
"Dave Baker" <Pumaracing(NoEmails)@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4358d179$1$41151$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
>
> Compare and contrast the case of the man who accidentally drove his land
> rover and trailer off the motorway and onto a train track. Jailed for 6
> years was it for the deaths of the passengers that resulted. No mens rea,
> no
> intent to harm, a complete albeit tragic accident but he had to face the
> consequences of his actions. Why do the police never have to do the same?
That is a specious argument. Gary Hart drove his vehicle whilst in an unfit
state to do so.
There was nothing accidental about that.
He knew that he was in such a state but chose to perform the actions which
led to the event
occurring, so that amounts to 'actus reus'.
bigbrian
I don't think there was any disciplinary action. The officer in
question, Brian Chester, was acquitted of manslaughter
I wonder what lessons were learned?
Brian
Mike
<k...@dropthisbigfoot.com> wrote:
>"Harry The Horse" <HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:112989689...@sabbath.news.uk.clara.net...
>> Peter McLelland wrote:
>>>
>>> It has happened once, and there is no real indicatio there is any
>>> probability of it happening again
>>>
>> Neither is there any probablity of an armed policeman facing down a
>> suicide bomber as envisioned by Kratos. Therefore the shoot to kill
>> policy should be abandoned.
>
>Ever since the police began carrying firearms there has been a shoot to kill
>policy. If an armed officer considers that the time has come to open fire -
>then he shoots to kill.
Whoosh! Went right over your head again, Kev.
There seems to be a conspiracy to characterize the *new* "shoot to
kill on suspicion and without challenge" policy as merely a "shoot to
kill" policy and then to say, as Kev quite rightly and misleadingly
does, that there's always been a "shoot to kill" policy and that
therefore (spot the logic fault here) nothing's changed.
What *has* changed, of course, is that the policy is now "shoot
without challenging and on a mere suspicion". It's that policy that
is unconscionable and should be dropped.
Mike.
Mike
<k...@dropthisbigfoot.com> wrote:
>That particular forensic evidence has now been overturned by new forensic
>evidence. That is why no action is being taken against the officers.
This is quite untrue. Either you're completely stupid or you're
pathologically incapable of reason where the police are concerned. I
suspect both.
The so-called "new evidence" has absolutely NOT overturned the old
evidence. Not even the CPS claim that, so why on earth you keep on
spouting this unmitigated nonsense is beyond me.
All the "new evidence" has done is introduce (so the CPS) say, some
"doubt". That's not "overturning" by a long way.
Please stop spouting this invented nonsense.
Mike.
Maxwell Turnbull
"bigbrian" <harr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8jkil11q2dbi3e38u...@4ax.com...
Now there's a surprise...lessons? What's that when it is at home?
Razor
is not enough evidence you want to waste public funds on a trial which has
no chance of success? If you know the legal system the matter wouldn't get
past half time, the cost implications to the public purse are huge and a
total waste of money. The fact they are police officers has no bearing on
it, there simply is no evidence for a realistic prosecution to be justified.
Its exactly the same for everyone not just police, thats why its a fair?? It
doesn't simply fall down to money and never should but why waste it?
Evidence is something a court needs to listen to which forms the basis of
any criminal trial, if there isn't any what do you want the prosecution to
say ......................... ????????????
'or should necessarily be
punished but that they should be held to account'
.................................... Please explain what you mean by 'held
to account' ??
>
>
Razor
"Paul Robson" <auti...@autismuk.muralichucks.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message
news:pan.2005.10.21....@autismuk.muralichucks.freeserve.co.uk...
How very true but now we have the fantastic CPS in control 'giving it a go'
is a non starter. Evidence must be robust and there must be a reasonable
chance of a conviction before even considering prosecuting. In any event the
trial would be halted at 'half time' by the judge who will direct the jury
to give a not guilty verdict and then scream at the CPS as to why the case
was brought in the first place! Letting a jury decide is and does not happen
unless there is a prima facia case to answer.
>
Razor
Very good so join and pass on your clear expertise, by the sounds of it you
have something to offer?
>>
>
>
joe
> Very good so join and pass on your clear expertise, by the sounds of
> it you have something to offer?
Instead of taking the piss, consider he has already served his time and
will presumably be too old now. If he was in the police, they retire
at, what, 30, 40, or 50 if they do not take advantage of the stress, I
need to retire bandwagon?
Chris Street
> "Harry The Horse" <HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:112989589...@sabbath.news.uk.clara.net...
>> Uno Hoo! wrote:
>>> "Harry The Horse" <HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:11298807...@echo.uk.clara.net...
>>>> Mr X wrote:
>>>>> 21 October 2005 07:46
>>>>>
>>>>> http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article321142.ece
>>>>>
>>>>> Shot dead by police 30. Officers convicted 0
>>>>>
>>>> Though to be fair, most of those shootings were jusifiable. The
>>>> trouble with extremist apologists from police misbehaviour, such as
>>>> Kev, is that they refuse to acknowledge that any mistakes have been
>>>> made and simply blame the victim ('illegal immigrant', 'ex-bank
>>>> robber') or smear their critics as 'police haters'.
>>>
>>> That's just not true. The police *do* acknowledge that mistakes have
>>> been made. What they do argue, quite correctly, that in these sort of
>>> situations you can never ever ensure that mistakes will not be made.
>>> If you are an armed police officer and you genuinely believe that you
>>> are facing an armed and dangerous person, then if a hostile move is
>>> made you will act.
>> That is not 'acknowledging a mistake' as you have ruled out there being
>> any corrective action. Saying that there is nothing we could have done to
>> have avoided the situation is precisely the kind arrogance I am referring
>> to. It rules out there being anything in police procedure that could or
>> should chnage.
>
> Tell me. If you pulled out of a junction tomorrow without seeing an
> approaching motorcyclist - and caused his death. Could you 'learn' from this
> experience so that you could ensure that such a thing *never* happened
> again?
>
>
> It rules out whether the officers may have been culpable in putting
>> themselves in a position where an innocent action could be misconstrued as
>> a threat. It also rules out, as was the case with Harry Stanley, where
>> police testimony had it that he turned around to brandish the 'shotgun',
>> in contradiction to the forsenic evidence.
>
> That particular forensic evidence has now been overturned by new forensic
> evidence. That is why no action is being taken against the officers.
I'm sorry but up to this point I was willing to give you the benefit of the
doubt. You quite clearly inhabit your own universe, and are deserving of
nothing but pity for the blinkered and wholly unreasonable viewpoints you
persist in maintaining.
Dave Baker
It went through an inquest at which it was determined that the killing was
unlawful. British justice has for hundreds of years been decided by a jury
of ones peers. Who the hell are the CPS to decide that in the face of the
evidence so far revealed and the decision of the inquest that there is
insufficient evidence to at least let a new jury decide the matter? To
anyone other than a serving or ex police officer these two men have lied in
court and notwithstanding that an innocent man was killed and someone should
be held accountable. You may not be quite such a fanatic as Uno Hoo but
everytime you post you reinforce the reason why the public now have the
lowest confidence in the police as in any time in history.
--
Dave Baker
Dave Baker
It's Prima Facie but not to worry. The police have rarely had any great
knowledge of and certainly little regard for the law - at least when it
applies to themselves.
--
Dave Baker
Dave Baker
Mike <mi...@kempston.net> wrote in message
news:i8mil1ptbddcmekbl...@news.kempston.net...
> On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 17:00:01 +0100, "Uno Hoo!"
> <k...@dropthisbigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> >That particular forensic evidence has now been overturned by new forensic
> >evidence. That is why no action is being taken against the officers.
>
> This is quite untrue. Either you're completely stupid or you're
> pathologically incapable of reason where the police are concerned. I
> suspect both.
Then killfile him like many of the rest of us have done and end this futile
debating with him.
--
Dave Baker
Mike Ross
<rsvptorob-u...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Mike Ross wrote:
>|| On 21 Oct 2005 01:59:04 -0500, Mr X <Mr...@privacy.net> wrote:
>||
>|| So let her have a whip-round or find a pro-bono and mount a private
>|| prosecution. There are enough people feel strongly about this case
>|| that she would have the support she would need.
>
>If she did I expect the State would just step in and drop it.
They quite probably would - and that would say a *lot*, loudly. It's
one thing to decide to do nothing, it's another entirely to decide to
take what would be an extremely controversial action.
Mr X
<mi...@kempston.net> writes
>There seems to be a conspiracy to characterize the *new* "shoot to
>kill on suspicion and without challenge" policy as merely a "shoot to
>kill" policy and then to say, as Kev quite rightly and misleadingly
>does, that there's always been a "shoot to kill" policy and that
>therefore (spot the logic fault here) nothing's changed.
>
>What *has* changed, of course, is that the policy is now "shoot
>without challenging and on a mere suspicion". It's that policy that
>is unconscionable and should be dropped.
Apart from being totally illegal
--
Mr X
Mr X
<k...@dropthisbigfoot.com> writes
I have already answered that question.
You are within a few hours of entering my killfile.
--
Mr X
Harry The Horse
evidebce to mount a case. Plenty of civilians find themselves in court on
lesser evidence tha implicate these two policemen.
Harry The Horse
> "Harry The Horse" <HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:11299131...@nnrp-t71-03.news.uk.clara.net...
>> Razor wrote:
>>>
>>> 'And that's all I am asking for. I have never said that the two
>>> poilicemen
>>>> who shot Mr Stanley were 'murderers' or should necessarily be
>>>> punished but that they should be held to account'.
>>>
>>> And what would you like to see happen to them?
>>>
>> Stand trial for attempting to pervert the course of justice and
>> manslaughter. If convicted be sent down for a very long stretch; if
>> acquitted, then released. You know, justice being seen to be done.
>>
> So having been through 4 CPS reviews, independant lawyers who say
> that there is not enough evidence you want to waste public funds on a
> trial which has no chance of success? If you know the legal system
> the matter wouldn't get past half time, the cost implications to the
> public purse are huge and a total waste of money.
as this the absolute necessity that justice be seen to be done is paramount.
> The fact they are police officers has no bearing on it,
>
You may be naive enough to believe that; don't expect many others to be.
> there simply is no evidence for a realistic prosecution to be justified.
>
That is not a fact. It is a matter of opinion on which I and many other
disagree.
Harry The Horse
when it happened, don't you think you might be compelled by the law to
'learn from your mistake'.
>
> It rules out whether the officers may have been culpable in putting
>> themselves in a position where an innocent action could be
>> misconstrued as a threat. It also rules out, as was the case with
>> Harry Stanley, where police testimony had it that he turned around
>> to brandish the 'shotgun', in contradiction to the forsenic evidence.
>
> That particular forensic evidence has now been overturned by new
> forensic evidence. That is why no action is being taken against the
> officers.
It has not been 'overturned'. Do stop spouting drivel. There has been a
difference of 'expert' opinion. Do try to be accurate in your language.
>>
>>> If it subsequently turns out that the suspect was
>>> *not* armed and dangerous then clearly that is tragic - but the fact
>>> that a mistake has been made is no reason to pillory the police.
>>>
>> All cases should be taken on their merits but let us remember that
>> it was the police that tried to smear the character of Harry Stanley
>> by leaking his PNC records. Also the off the record 'briefings'
>> were that allowed to pour blame on Mr de Menezes for several days
>> after his assassination. How about not pilloring the victim in
>> these cases.
>
> I think you will find when the IPCC enquiry is released that most of
> the misinformation about Menezes and his clothing and actions came
> from civilian witnesses who misunderstood what they had seen and
> spoke to the press. The police officers pursuing Menezes vaulted the
> barriers, for example (because they didn't have tickets) and if there
> were several of them then it would have been easy for a member of the
> public to misconstrue what they were seeing. Ian Blair has stated
> that he regrets that the police did not act sooner to correct some of
> the misinformation that was being bandied about. I don't know, of
> course, but I suspect you will find that this misinformation did not
> originate from the police.
It was the police who claimed that Mr de Menezes did obey the instructions
of armed police which lead the extreme right wing police apologist Bruce
Anderson writing shortly afterwards that de Menezes desreved what he got for
being stupid. The best way of establishing who was responsible for this
misinformation is to look at whose story was being promoted by it. It was
the story that the police were justified because de Menzes was 'stupid'.
Off the record briefing occur. You know they occur; I know that they occur.
>>> Society puts the gun in the police officers hand and asks him to go
>>> and do its dirty work. Whilst it is entirely right that armed
>>> officers should be held to account for their actions
>>>
>> And that's all I am asking for. I have never said that the two
>> poilicemen who shot Mr Stanley were 'murderers' or should
>> necessarily be punished but that they should be held to account. This now
>> will never happen; we will never know why they shot an
>> innocent man and no lessons will be learned. You may be satisfied
>> with that outcome; I am not.
>
> But 'being held to account' means being investigated. You cannot put
> people on trial if there is insufficient evidence to support
> proceedings!
That is a matter of opinion, Not a fact. Two inquest juries disagreed and
I would sooner trust their judgement that those with a vested interest in
seeing that dirty linen is not washed in public.
>
>>> - they are
>>> deserving of consideration because of the situation we put them in.
>
>> In other words, tacit immunity from prosecution.
>
> Not at all - but consideration must be given to the extremely
> difficult task that society asks them to carry out in their name.
> It's not a question of immunity - rather a recognition of the task
> they are being asked to carry out.
>
Yes, euphemism. The enemy of clear and honest thought. I prefer to use the
word that actually describes it. Immunity.
> Lots of professionals are
>> put in life & death situations yetr they do appear to enjoy the same
>> carte blanche.
>
> Not many are placed in the situation of having to make split second
> life and death decisions.
>
Some are.
>> I
>>> repeat that the number of accidental shootings in the UK pales into
>>> insignificance compared to many other countries where all police
>>> officers are routinely armed.
>> So best not to increase their numbers.
>
> Indeed.
>
We agree about something.
Harry The Horse
handling a gun he will never acknowledge that he was blameless in the
matter.
Paul Robson
> So having been through 4 CPS reviews, independant lawyers
This is a joke, isn't it ? CPS "independent" of the Police ? Not according
to a DI I know they aren't !
Harry The Horse
> On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 16:20:23 +0000, AlanG wrote:
>
>> But some of those cases are reasons to get justifiably concerned
>> about an apparent police immunity from the law. There are a couple
>> of cases in that list where the police ignored advice from the
>> families and deliberately put themselves in a position where they
>> would be justified in killing.
>
> It's a bit like the miscarriages of justice and the endless deaths in
> custody.
>
> It's not that case A or case B or cop C or cop D gets off.
>
> It's that *no-one* is ever successfully prosecuted, and minimal
> efforts are made to find evidence.
>
I remember a particularly notorious case about 25 years ago when a group of
black teenagers were beaten up by some anonymous policemen. Their 'honest'
comrades refused to help the investigation and it had to be abandoned. The
extent to which this was due to the pathological hatred of black people
shared substantial numbers of police officers or whether it was just down to
their unwillingness to inform on their criminally minded breathren, we will
never know.
Harry The Horse
> Ian wrote:
>
>> I have to say I think anyone who even thinks of listing a man who
>> attacked police with a shotgun and a samurai sword as not being
>> justifiable, or even a man who fired directly at police ("but may
>> have been fake") in a list where he's implying the police were out of
>> order, may just have a little teensy bit of an agenda.
>
>
> I would agree with that sentiment. In todays society when police have
> a truncheon or a gun, when threatened, they have every right to shoot.
> The investigation afterward should absolve them of any blame. However,
> when some people post a few examples of non investigated shootings,
> they are told, "it's only a rare occurence."
>
as 30 people shot by police in such a relatively short period of time. Of
course only about 15 percent of them are questionable but that's still
something considering no one has ever been brought to account for them. Of
course the extreme police apologists would say that 0 percent are
questionable but their bias is pretty clear to see.
Palindr☻me
AFAIK, there isn't a lot of love lost between the two
organisations - so I don't think you can "blame" the CPS
lawyers for this decision. Which would have been taken at a
much higher level than the CPS lawyers themselves, in this
high-profile case.
Added to which, there never was, IIUC, any suggestion that
the officers had anything to gain by the shooting, or by
using the tactics they employed, over any alternatives.
Other "professionals" do seem to get the benefit of the
doubt when they screw up, unless they individually make a
habit of it. I can't think that there are many policemen who
have repeatedly killed innocent people and don't think that
these two will be given the opportunity.
Of course, every time there seems to have been an
institutional closing ranks, the public grows increasingly
disillusioned. We haven't yet reached the state where the
police are considered by most to be the enemy, though. It
happens - I have been in several countries where joe public
will "accidentally on purpose" block the path of any police
car, on principle. Or, if they see a policeman in trouble,
echo Bernie Grant's thoughts that they deserve a good
hiding, individually and collectively.
There must be a large section of the population who now
think that they, or some people they know, are at a bigger
risk from the police than they are from terrorists.
--
Sue
Paul Robson
> Other "professionals" do seem to get the benefit of the
> doubt when they screw up, unless they individually make a
> habit of it.
..... this simply is not true.