Home counties police force-what happens when you're burgled!!!
belin
Counties.
Woman to police(999).There's a burgler in my garden shed-I can see him
Police-We're rather busy at present.We'll get there when we can!
Woman calls 999 again,after one minute
Woman to police(999).Don't worry about the burgler.I've fired a shot
into the shed,and all's quiet!
Two minutes later, a helicopter,2x ARV and lots of police arrive,and
catch the bemused burgler in the shed.
One policeman says to woman'I thought you said you'd fired a shot into
your shed'
Woman to policeman'I thought you said you would get here when you
could!'
It would be funny if it wern't true!
I think the woman may find herself subject to further 'police'
action,after embarrasing them
Dr Zoidberg
<snip urban myth>
> It would be funny if it wern't true!
But it isn't true.
That story has been doing the rounds for years.
If the paper was stupid enough to publish a letter that claimed this was a
real event then they must have been having a slow day.
--
Alex
"I laugh in the face of danger"
"Then I hide until it goes away"
Steve
"Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOOOOO!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote in message
news:aun6ql$8n93b$1...@ID-46820.news.dfncis.de...
> belin wrote:
> <snip urban myth>
>
> > It would be funny if it wern't true!
>
> But it isn't true.
> That story has been doing the rounds for years.
> If the paper was stupid enough to publish a letter that claimed this was a
> real event then they must have been having a slow day.
But if it were a slow day they would have had time to research and check it
I love it when the right wing have to fabricate stories to make their point,
how that cannot see the light and realise that the need to lie to make their
case must make their case pretty weak. I suppose they are all stupid.
Now here is a Daily Mail exclusive
"The poor education standards in Blairs Britain results in rocketing sales
of mindless bigotted pap"
DB.
"Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOOOOO!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote in message
news:aun6ql$8n93b$1...@ID-46820.news.dfncis.de...
> <snip urban myth>
>
> > It would be funny if it wern't true!
>
> But it isn't true.
> That story has been doing the rounds for years.
> --
> Alex
No, it probably isn't true. But doesn't it express well the
attitude of the police and of the law to those who burgle our homes and
that towards those who seek to protect their homes?
If the story_were_true it would probably end with the woman
prosecuted for 'wasting police time', and receiving a heavier sentence
than the caught-in-the-act burglar.
DB.
Dr Zoidberg
> "Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOOOOO!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:aun6ql$8n93b$1...@ID-46820.news.dfncis.de...
>> belin wrote:
>> <snip urban myth>
>>
>>> It would be funny if it wern't true!
>>
>> But it isn't true.
>> That story has been doing the rounds for years.
>> If the paper was stupid enough to publish a letter that claimed this
>> was a real event then they must have been having a slow day.
>
> But if it were a slow day they would have had time to research and
> check it
Hehehehe , my bad.
I meant slow as in "Not very quick on the uptake" rather than "Bog all
better to do".
Dr Zoidberg
DB. wrote:
> "Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOOOOO!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:aun6ql$8n93b$1...@ID-46820.news.dfncis.de...
>> belin wrote:
>> <snip urban myth>
>>
>>> It would be funny if it wern't true!
>>
>> But it isn't true.
>> That story has been doing the rounds for years.
>
> No, it probably isn't true. But doesn't it express well the
> attitude of the police and of the law to those who burgle our homes
> and that towards those who seek to protect their homes?
When you say "The police" who do you actually mean?
The police officers I know would much rather be spending their time going to
a burglary in progress with a decent chance of catching the offender than
being tied up taking statements or dealing with paperwork.
> If the story_were_true it would probably end with the woman
> prosecuted for 'wasting police time', and receiving a heavier sentence
> than the caught-in-the-act burglar.
>
I agree that the criminal justice system as a whole may give that impression
, but its unfair to criticise the individual police officers for its
failings.
Phil Stovell
(belin) wrote:
>The Daily Mail
[Snip]
>It would be funny if it wern't true!
I think I've highlighted the problem with this story.
--
Phil Stovell
South Hampshire, UK
Steve Frazer
news:aun8ri$7v6h1$1...@ID-72967.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOOOOO!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:aun6ql$8n93b$1...@ID-46820.news.dfncis.de...
> > belin wrote:
> > <snip urban myth>
> >
> > > It would be funny if it wern't true!
> >
> > But it isn't true.
> > That story has been doing the rounds for years.
>
Probably?
> But doesn't it express well the
> attitude of the police and of the law to those who burgle our homes and
> that towards those who seek to protect their homes?
No.
> If the story_were_true it would probably end with the woman
> prosecuted for 'wasting police time', and receiving a heavier sentence
> than the caught-in-the-act burglar.
If....... blah, blah,........ good grief talk about clutching at straws. If
you have a point to make then please find something factual to base it on
rather than 'If this fictitious story were true then....'
--
Steve
"Pity the man who knows his insignificance,
Pity the man who doesn't"
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steve_frazer/
Steve Walker
> No, it probably isn't true. But doesn't it express well the
> attitude of the police and of the law to those who burgle our homes and
> that towards those who seek to protect their homes?
No, it merely expresses the fantasies of embittered Daily Mail readers.
Steve
> news:aun6ql$8n93b$1...@ID-46820.news.dfncis.de...
> > belin wrote:
> > <snip urban myth>
> >
> > > It would be funny if it wern't true!
> >
> > But it isn't true.
> > That story has been doing the rounds for years.
>
> > --
> > Alex
>
>
> No, it probably isn't true. But doesn't it express well the
> attitude of the police and of the law to those who burgle our homes and
> that towards those who seek to protect their homes?
Surely a true story would better demonstrate the attitude rather than a
total fabrication?
> If the story_were_true it would probably end with the woman
> prosecuted for 'wasting police time', and receiving a heavier sentence
> than the caught-in-the-act burglar.
In paranoid right wing mind yes it probably would.
Steve
> Steve wrote:
> > "Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOOOOO!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:aun6ql$8n93b$1...@ID-46820.news.dfncis.de...
> >> belin wrote:
> >> <snip urban myth>
> >>
> >>> It would be funny if it wern't true!
> >>
> >> But it isn't true.
> >> That story has been doing the rounds for years.
> >> If the paper was stupid enough to publish a letter that claimed this
> >> was a real event then they must have been having a slow day.
> >
> > But if it were a slow day they would have had time to research and
> > check it
>
> Hehehehe , my bad.
> I meant slow as in "Not very quick on the uptake" rather than "Bog all
> better to do".
Not having a go at you, I should have said
"proffesional journalists would have time check the the story", we all know
these people steer well clear of the Mail.
Richard Miller
<dbirc...@btinternet.com> writes
>
>"Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOOOOO!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:aun6ql$8n93b$1...@ID-46820.news.dfncis.de...
>> belin wrote:
>> <snip urban myth>
>>
>> > It would be funny if it wern't true!
>>
>> But it isn't true.
>> That story has been doing the rounds for years.
>
>> --
>> Alex
>
>
> No, it probably isn't true. But doesn't it express well the
>attitude of the police and of the law to those who burgle our homes and
>that towards those who seek to protect their homes?
No. It expresses well the views of Daily Mail readers who have probably
never had any direct dealings with the police, who believe what the
Daily Mail tell them would happen if they did call the police.
--
Richard Miller
Steve O
should be included in the website below
Urban Legends Reference Pages
http://www.snopes2.com/index.html
"belin" <bel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eb34bcb9.0212...@posting.google.com...
Harry the Horse
> Counties.
>
police time.
simon
"Richard Miller" <ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:L49oDeCZ...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...snip
> No. It expresses well the views of Daily Mail readers who have probably
> never had any direct dealings with the police, who believe what the
> Daily Mail tell them would happen if they did call the police.
so remind us richard what was the police response time when tony martin was
burgled it certainly wasnt quick
Simon
Vernon
"Harry the Horse" <HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:104120632...@dyke.uk.clara.net...
Yes far better to say there is someone in the garden, and that when you
looked out of the bedroom window it looked like he has a gun, you are now
hiding in the airing cupboard.
That should guarantee a response and how can they say you wasted their time
If in your opinoin they had what "looked like" a gun. (This was sufficient
for police marksmen to shoot someone with a table leg)
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.434 / Virus Database: 243 - Release Date: 25/12/2002
Steve Walker
Would you pay the extra tax to have twice as many bobbies? That's the
simple answer (along with some improvements in efficiency etc, but the key
figure is 'bums on seats')
zzz xxx
Why do some people only think of more tax ?(Some of us have paid a lot
more tax in recent years - for what?)It would cost nothing to double
the number of police that visit my area !! Why not consider cutting
out waste and use that money more wisely ?The police recently found
the cash/men to go to Turkey .They found cash/men to go to Ireland to
speak to a missing girl - "Would it not have been cheaper to use the
phone or have her put on the boat?".Ministers "each" using a private
jet to go to the same meeting - "Why not share or use normal
commercial flights?"We can find unlimited funds to (seemingly) police
the world.Unlimited funds to demolish buildings in foreign parts and
to rebuild them .Unlimited funds to subsidise millionaire farmers to
produce goods they can not sell .Unlimited funds for illegals breaking
into the UK .Etc Etc.
The Gov and local Councils , whenever they meet , should ask each
other "How can we save?" - not - "How can we spend?"
simon
"Steve Walker" <spam...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:auqbdd$qk$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> simon wrote:
> > "Richard Miller" <ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:L49oDeCZ...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...
> >> In message <aun8ri$7v6h1$1...@ID-72967.news.dfncis.de>, DB.
> >> <dbirc...@btinternet.com> writes
> > snip
> >> No. It expresses well the views of Daily Mail readers who have probably
> >> never had any direct dealings with the police, who believe what the
> >> Daily Mail tell them would happen if they did call the police.
> >
> > so remind us richard what was the police response time when tony martin
> was
> > burgled it certainly wasnt quick
>
> Would you pay the extra tax to have twice as many bobbies?
Well twice as many bobbies round here would still be none
> That's the
> simple answer (along with some improvements in efficiency etc, but the key
> figure is 'bums on seats')
But the budget keeps going up and up so where are the improvements
Simon
Bill and Helen Rogers
"simon" <si...@unikey.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3e117d42$1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
Extra police will not help unless these are adequate sanctions when
criminals are caught.
The Tony Martin burglars were not first-time offenders - they had both been
arrested many times.
Lord Woolf has ordered that burglars caught for the first time won't go to
prison.
The police arrest the same people over and over again.
Where is the deterrent?
Crime does pay.
GG
"simon" <si...@unikey.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3e117d42$1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>
Police sick pay and their pensions.
Gaz
> Simon
>
>
Richard Miller
<si...@unikey.freeserve.co.uk> writes
lone woman reports a burglar on the premises at the time.
--
Richard Miller
Andy Long
Pardon? If the story were true then she'd be stuck on for firearms offences.
The public will always be critical about persons in authourity, it happens
in society, rank structures and families. Someone can always do it better,
quicker or cheaper. Its a fact of life that people whinge about stuff,
without having a clue to what is actually entailed.
Andy Long
"simon" <si...@unikey.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3e117d42$1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>
> news:auqbdd$qk$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > simon wrote:
> > > "Richard Miller" <ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:L49oDeCZ...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...
> > >> In message <aun8ri$7v6h1$1...@ID-72967.news.dfncis.de>, DB.
> > >> <dbirc...@btinternet.com> writes
> > > snip
> > Would you pay the extra tax to have twice as many bobbies?
>
> Well twice as many bobbies round here would still be none
>
> > That's the
> > simple answer (along with some improvements in efficiency etc, but the
key
> > figure is 'bums on seats')
>
> But the budget keeps going up and up so where are the improvements
So will the costs. Which force are we talking about.
Andy Long
"Vernon" <big_vern{out}@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:104121202...@dyke.uk.clara.net...
>
> "Harry the Horse" <HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:104120632...@dyke.uk.clara.net...
> > "belin" <bel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:eb34bcb9.0212...@posting.google.com...
> > > The Daily Mail recently published a letter from a woman in the Home
> > > Counties.
> > >
> > If this story were true the Police would have charged her with wasting
> > police time.
> >
>
> Yes far better to say there is someone in the garden, and that when you
> looked out of the bedroom window it looked like he has a gun, you are now
> hiding in the airing cupboard.
>
> That should guarantee a response and how can they say you wasted their
time
> If in your opinoin they had what "looked like" a gun. (This was sufficient
> for police marksmen to shoot someone with a table leg)
Was that the fellow who someone said had a gun and the table leg was in a
plastic bag and presented to the police resulting in him being shot?
It would seem sensible to free resources from less urgent work to attend the
more urgent work. A shed burglar would come lower down the list than someone
shooting him.
simon
> In message <3e0f9...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>, simon
> <si...@unikey.freeserve.co.uk> writes
> >
> >"Richard Miller" <ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:L49oDeCZ...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...
> >so remind us richard what was the police response time when tony martin
was
> >burgled it certainly wasnt quick
> >
> > Simon
> >
> >
> So remind us, Simon, what that has to do with a situation in which a
> lone woman reports a burglar on the premises at the time.
It shows the police attitude to rural crime which is basically if there
happens to be a patrol car there they will attend if not at the very best
your waiting 30 mins but more likely hours burglar on the premises or not
Simon
simon
"Andy Long" <dont....@all.thankyou> wrote in message
news:y9NQ9.522$Vb3....@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
>
> "simon" <si...@unikey.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3e117d42$1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> > But the budget keeps going up and up so where are the improvements
>
> So will the costs. Which force are we talking about.
Any but if you want specifics Kent and Maidstone 200% rise in tax
contributions for the police in two years and 184% increase in crime (tax
figures from the county council crime rate from the Kent Messenger)
Simon
Mike
<dont....@all.thankyou> writes
>> for police marksmen to shoot someone with a table leg)
>
>Was that the fellow who someone said had a gun and the table leg was in a
>plastic bag and presented to the police resulting in him being shot?
>
In another case, a highly trained police firearms officer gunned down
James Ashley, who was standing unarmed and naked in his bedroom, because
he though he (Mr Ashley) was carrying a "concealed weapon". If such a
highly trained police officer can make a mistake like that, surely an
untrained member of the public shouldn't be expected to do better.
>It would seem sensible to free resources from less urgent work to attend the
>more urgent work. A shed burglar would come lower down the list than someone
>shooting him.
>
>
--
Mike
Andy R
"Mike" <mi...@fensoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:JtKYcBAv...@fenlandsoftware.demon.co.uk...
> In article <OiNQ9.524$Vb3....@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>, Andy Long
> <dont....@all.thankyou> writes
> >
> >"Vernon" <big_vern{out}@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:104121202...@dyke.uk.clara.net...
> >> If in your opinoin they had what "looked like" a gun. (This was
sufficient
> >> for police marksmen to shoot someone with a table leg)
> >
> >Was that the fellow who someone said had a gun and the table leg was in a
> >plastic bag and presented to the police resulting in him being shot?
> >
> ITYM Mr Harry Stanley who was shot in the back of the head.
>
Was this the case where the inquest jury were told they could not give an
'unlawful killing' verdict. How can this happen, what's the point of a jury
if they can't give the verdict they want?
Rgds
Andy R
Steve Walker
> Was this the case where the inquest jury were told they could not give an
> 'unlawful killing' verdict. How can this happen, what's the point of a
jury
> if they can't give the verdict they want?
If juries changed anything, the govt would probably aboli... erm... hang on
a minute, that's exactly what they're trying to do right now....
Andy Long
> <dont....@all.thankyou> writes
> >
> >"Vernon" <big_vern{out}@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:104121202...@dyke.uk.clara.net...
> >> If in your opinoin they had what "looked like" a gun. (This was
sufficient
> >> for police marksmen to shoot someone with a table leg)
> >
> >Was that the fellow who someone said had a gun and the table leg was in a
> >plastic bag and presented to the police resulting in him being shot?
> >
> ITYM Mr Harry Stanley who was shot in the back of the head.
Were the circumstances as I described?
>
> In another case, a highly trained police firearms officer gunned down
> James Ashley, who was standing unarmed and naked in his bedroom, because
> he though he (Mr Ashley) was carrying a "concealed weapon". If such a
> highly trained police officer can make a mistake like that, surely an
> untrained member of the public shouldn't be expected to do better.
Is this the fellow (believed a drug dealer) who was woken at 0400 and was
expected to be armed?
I agree the same standards should be applied to the police and the public.
Andy Long
I think given the nature of rural policing, few resources ( little crime)
long distances and poor roads you will have longer waits for the cops to
attend.
You will find one of the performance indicators in the annual report for
Kent I linked to earlier is response time, urgent and in the rural.
Andy Long
I presume you mean council tax, I don't know what percentage of the budget
that makes.
Welcome to the NCRS which crime everything that moves, and dependant of how
much crime was reported before will show some nice big increases.
http://www.kent.police.uk/reports/annual.pdf page 22
That seems to show a reduction in the crime rate. Perhaps the paper was
refering to a specific offence of somesuch.
>
> Simon
>
>
simon
"Andy Long" <dont....@all.thankyou> wrote in message
Having spoken to the parish council crime is indeed down in kent (not sure
which reporting method kent are using as they wont tell anyone (apparently)
but rural crime is up massively and there is a complete refusal on the part
of the police to even discuss the issue's with the 9 parish councils here, I
havent been involved directly so all that is taken from those who are
Simon
simon
"Andy Long" <dont....@all.thankyou> wrote in message
>
> "simon" <si...@unikey.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3e13f...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> > It shows the police attitude to rural crime which is basically if there
> > happens to be a patrol car there they will attend if not at the very
best
> > your waiting 30 mins but more likely hours burglar on the premises or
not
>
> I think given the nature of rural policing, few resources ( little crime)
> long distances and poor roads you will have longer waits for the cops to
> attend.
not sure about little crime merely different crimes and we used to have a
copper in every village unsurprisingly they have now gone and are all in the
town so exactly why are we paying more and what are you supposed to do while
waiting for them
Simon
Mike
Long <dont....@all.thankyou> writes
>
>"Mike" <mi...@fensoft.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:JtKYcBAv...@fenlandsoftware.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <OiNQ9.524$Vb3....@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>, Andy Long
>> <dont....@all.thankyou> writes
>> >
>> >plastic bag and presented to the police resulting in him being shot?
>> >
>> ITYM Mr Harry Stanley who was shot in the back of the head.
>
>Were the circumstances as I described?
The killers claimed Mr Stanley of threatened them with a firearm (which
didn't exist) but there were no independent witnesses to support their
story. Mr Stanley was shot in the back of the head, so it's difficult
to understand how he could have been threatening them when he was shot.
As the killers were never charged with any offence, they didn't have to
justify their actions in open court.
>>
>> In another case, a highly trained police firearms officer gunned down
>> James Ashley, who was standing unarmed and naked in his bedroom, because
>> he though he (Mr Ashley) was carrying a "concealed weapon". If such a
>> highly trained police officer can make a mistake like that, surely an
>> untrained member of the public shouldn't be expected to do better.
>
>Is this the fellow (believed a drug dealer) who was woken at 0400 and was
>expected to be armed?
I'm not sure of the exact time but I believe you're right. The police
later claimed they thought he might have a firearm in the house but when
he was gunned down he was obviously unarmed. ISTR it being suggested
that the killer had "tunnel vision" but AFAIAA this hasn't been
confirmed.
>
>I agree the same standards should be applied to the police and the public.
>
That's easy to say. Cases such as these two (amongst others) show that
the same standards are not applied.
--
Mike
belin
selective about the crimes that are 'reported' as this can help
statistics.Surely the police would not do such a thing?????
"Andy Long" <dont....@all.thankyou> wrote in message news:<_e5R9.2220$RY4.1...@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net>...
Andy Long
>
> "Andy Long" <dont....@all.thankyou> wrote in message
> news:dl5R9.2222$RY4.1...@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net...
> >
> > "simon" <si...@unikey.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:3e13f...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> snip
>
> > I think given the nature of rural policing, few resources ( little
crime)
> > long distances and poor roads you will have longer waits for the cops to
> > attend.
>
> not sure about little crime merely different crimes and we used to have a
> copper in every village unsurprisingly they have now gone and are all in
the
> town so exactly why are we paying more and what are you supposed to do
while
> waiting for them
Quite, the motive for this is efficiency, a requirement placed by government
by virtue of budgetary contsraints.
Oddly they then give money away to specifically target rural crime or
whatever is in vogue at the time.
Andy Long
> In article <9l5R9.2221$RY4.1...@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net>, Andy
> Long <dont....@all.thankyou> writes
> >
> >"Mike" <mi...@fensoft.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:JtKYcBAv...@fenlandsoftware.demon.co.uk...
> >> In article <OiNQ9.524$Vb3....@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>, Andy
Long
> >> <dont....@all.thankyou> writes
> >> >
> >> >Was that the fellow who someone said had a gun and the table leg was
in a
> >> >plastic bag and presented to the police resulting in him being shot?
> >> >
> >> ITYM Mr Harry Stanley who was shot in the back of the head.
> >
> >Were the circumstances as I described?
>
> The killers claimed Mr Stanley of threatened them with a firearm (which
> didn't exist) but there were no independent witnesses to support their
> story. Mr Stanley was shot in the back of the head, so it's difficult
> to understand how he could have been threatening them when he was shot.
> As the killers were never charged with any offence, they didn't have to
> justify their actions in open court.
Perhaps the officer that percieved the threat earliest was not infront of
the the dead bloke?
>
> >>
> >> In another case, a highly trained police firearms officer gunned down
> >> James Ashley, who was standing unarmed and naked in his bedroom,
because
> >> he though he (Mr Ashley) was carrying a "concealed weapon". If such a
> >> highly trained police officer can make a mistake like that, surely an
> >> untrained member of the public shouldn't be expected to do better.
> >
> >Is this the fellow (believed a drug dealer) who was woken at 0400 and was
> >expected to be armed?
>
> I'm not sure of the exact time but I believe you're right. The police
> later claimed they thought he might have a firearm in the house but when
> he was gunned down he was obviously unarmed. ISTR it being suggested
> that the killer had "tunnel vision" but AFAIAA this hasn't been
> confirmed.
The problem here is that someone who is known to use guns, but may not have
one when the police arrest him, will be percieved as a higher threat than a
stranger to guns. I think the officers were in an unacceptable position in
the first place but once there a sudden movement by the dead bloke might be
enough to make them think he was bring a gun a to bear, esp in low light. I
can see how the tunnel vision thing could be viable.
> >
> >I agree the same standards should be applied to the police and the
public.
> >
> That's easy to say. Cases such as these two (amongst others) show that
> the same standards are not applied.
Indeed, officers get a harsher time at court. The same standards are
applied, there are additional elements that are included. I dont see how you
can simply equate the self defence between police and the public. The police
are sent to situations requiring self defence and once there are expected to
act.
> --
> Mike
zzz xxx
>town
No they are not! Well maybe your town but not the ones i know .
More likely in a warm car/office or off sick
Alan
<dont....@all.thankyou> wrote:
>
>"Mike" <mi...@fensoft.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:zkjGODAK...@fenlandsoftware.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <9l5R9.2221$RY4.1...@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net>, Andy
>> Long <dont....@all.thankyou> writes
>> >
>> >"Mike" <mi...@fensoft.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >news:JtKYcBAv...@fenlandsoftware.demon.co.uk...
>> >> In article <OiNQ9.524$Vb3....@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>, Andy
>Long
>> >> <dont....@all.thankyou> writes
>> >> >
>> >> >Was that the fellow who someone said had a gun and the table leg was
>in a
>> >> >plastic bag and presented to the police resulting in him being shot?
>> >> >
>> >> ITYM Mr Harry Stanley who was shot in the back of the head.
>> >
>> >Were the circumstances as I described?
>>
>> The killers claimed Mr Stanley of threatened them with a firearm (which
>> didn't exist) but there were no independent witnesses to support their
>> story. Mr Stanley was shot in the back of the head, so it's difficult
>> to understand how he could have been threatening them when he was shot.
>> As the killers were never charged with any offence, they didn't have to
>> justify their actions in open court.
>
>Perhaps the officer that percieved the threat earliest was not infront of
>the the dead bloke?
Since unlike a member of the public their actions were never tried in
open court we will never know. The fact remains that a man was killed
while going about his lawful business. The killers are known but their
defence has never been tested in court.
>
>>
>> >>
>> >> In another case, a highly trained police firearms officer gunned down
>> >> James Ashley, who was standing unarmed and naked in his bedroom,
>because
>> >> he though he (Mr Ashley) was carrying a "concealed weapon". If such a
>> >> highly trained police officer can make a mistake like that, surely an
>> >> untrained member of the public shouldn't be expected to do better.
>> >
>> >Is this the fellow (believed a drug dealer) who was woken at 0400 and was
>> >expected to be armed?
>>
>> I'm not sure of the exact time but I believe you're right. The police
>> later claimed they thought he might have a firearm in the house but when
>> he was gunned down he was obviously unarmed. ISTR it being suggested
>> that the killer had "tunnel vision" but AFAIAA this hasn't been
>> confirmed.
>
>The problem here is that someone who is known to use guns, but may not have
>one when the police arrest him, will be percieved as a higher threat than a
>stranger to guns. I think the officers were in an unacceptable position in
>the first place but once there a sudden movement by the dead bloke might be
>enough to make them think he was bring a gun a to bear, esp in low light. I
>can see how the tunnel vision thing could be viable.
Again someone who was unarmed and no threat to anyone was killed by
armed police and again a killer walks away. Remind us again whop put
the victim in danger.
>
>> >
>> >I agree the same standards should be applied to the police and the
>public.
>> >
>> That's easy to say. Cases such as these two (amongst others) show that
>> the same standards are not applied.
>
>Indeed, officers get a harsher time at court. The same standards are
>applied, there are additional elements that are included. I dont see how you
In the case of Mr Stanley the complaint is that the case never came to
court.
>can simply equate the self defence between police and the public. The police
>are sent to situations requiring self defence and once there are expected to
>act.
The public are placed in positions of needing self defence but are
dissallowed. It seems we need a means of defence not only from the
criminal but also from the police.
Alan G
The rule of law 'excludes the idea of any exemption
of officials or others from the duty of obedience to
the law which governs other citizens or from the
jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals'
(Dicey)
Mike
>>
>> The killers claimed Mr Stanley of threatened them with a firearm (which
>> didn't exist) but there were no independent witnesses to support their
>> story. Mr Stanley was shot in the back of the head, so it's difficult
>> to understand how he could have been threatening them when he was shot.
>> As the killers were never charged with any offence, they didn't have to
>> justify their actions in open court.
>
>Perhaps the officer that percieved the threat earliest was not infront of
>the the dead bloke?
>
officers, he would have been facing them. In order for another officer
to shoot him in the back, that officer would need to discharge a round
in the direction of the officer(s) Mr Stanley was facing. I supposes it
is possible.
>>
[SNIP]
[ NOTE: The following relates to the case of Mr Ashley]
>
>The problem here is that someone who is known to use guns, but may not have
>one when the police arrest him, will be percieved as a higher threat than a
>stranger to guns. I think the officers were in an unacceptable position in
>the first place but once there a sudden movement by the dead bloke might be
>enough to make them think he was bring a gun a to bear, esp in low light. I
>can see how the tunnel vision thing could be viable.
>
The point was that, if a firearms officer can manage to mistake
*nothing* for a firearm, it wouldn't be unreasonable for an untrained
householder to report that s/he thought an intruder/prowler were armed.
Mr Ashley jumped out of bed when he heard sounds of people smashing
their way into his home. An understandable reaction IMHO and one which
the police should have been expecting. Their own actions put them in a
position where Mr Ashley had no chance - anything he did could be used
as an excuse to kill him.
As for the tunnel vision thing, I would question whether a person so
afflicted should be permitted to use firearms in situations like that.
>> >
>> >I agree the same standards should be applied to the police and the
>public.
>> >
>> That's easy to say. Cases such as these two (amongst others) show that
>> the same standards are not applied.
>
>Indeed, officers get a harsher time at court.
They weren't even taken to court.
> The same standards are
>applied, there are additional elements that are included. I dont see how you
>can simply equate the self defence between police and the public. The police
>are sent to situations requiring self defence and once there are expected to
>act.
If a member of the public kills someone and claims "self defence", that
claim is investigated by an independent organisation and, quite often,
tested in court. When a police officer kills someone, the claim is not
independently investigated and is not always tested in court. IIRC
(BICBW) didn't a coroner's jury return a verdict of "unlawful killing"
in Mr Stanley's case?
--
Mike
simon
"Andy Long" <dont....@all.thankyou> wrote in message
>
> "Mike" <mi...@fensoft.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:zkjGODAK...@fenlandsoftware.demon.co.uk...
> > In article <9l5R9.2221$RY4.1...@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net>, Andy
> > Long <dont....@all.thankyou> writes
> > >
> > >"Mike" <mi...@fensoft.co.uk> wrote in message
> > >news:JtKYcBAv...@fenlandsoftware.demon.co.uk...
> > >> In article <OiNQ9.524$Vb3....@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>, Andy
> Long
> > >> <dont....@all.thankyou> writes
>> they didn't have to
> > justify their actions in open court.
>
> Perhaps the officer that percieved the threat earliest was not infront of
> the the dead bloke?
Agreed but why wasnt he charged or are you trying to tell us that a MoP in
the same circumstances wouldnt have been
> > I'm not sure of the exact time but I believe you're right. The police
> > later claimed they thought he might have a firearm in the house but when
> > he was gunned down he was obviously unarmed. ISTR it being suggested
> > that the killer had "tunnel vision" but AFAIAA this hasn't been
> > confirmed.
>
> The problem here is that someone who is known to use guns, but may not
have
> one when the police arrest him, will be percieved as a higher threat than
a
> stranger to guns. I think the officers were in an unacceptable position in
> the first place but once there a sudden movement by the dead bloke might
be
> enough to make them think he was bring a gun a to bear, esp in low light.
I
> can see how the tunnel vision thing could be viable.
Possibly but again would it work for a MoP I doubt it
snip
> > That's easy to say. Cases such as these two (amongst others) show that
> > the same standards are not applied.
>
> Indeed, officers get a harsher time at court. The same standards are
> applied, there are additional elements that are included.
Except they very rarely seem to get to court and when they do the CPS close
ranks and amazingly theres no evidence what a suprise!
>I dont see how you
> can simply equate the self defence between police and the public. The
police
> are sent to situations requiring self defence and once there are expected
to
> act.
And the public have to defend themselves as well but under very different
rules
Simon
Bill and Helen Rogers
routine interactions between police and public there are often initiated at
gunpoint.
When police stop a car or a suspect, the officer is usually pointing a gun
at them until the point that they completely comply with demands and are
spreadeagled on the ground or across the bonnet of the car.
I hope we don't get to that situation in England, but at least the public in
America know exactly how to behave when they are stopped.
Making sudden movements (such as raising a chair-leg in a plastic bag) when
facing an armed officer is a very reckless thing to do.
Anyone placed in the position of that officer who would NOT pull the trigger
clearly places less value on their own life than that of the suspect.
Mike
<bil...@salmicr.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>I don't know how true to life the American cop shows are but it seems that
>routine interactions between police and public there are often initiated at
>gunpoint.
>
>When police stop a car or a suspect, the officer is usually pointing a gun
>at them until the point that they completely comply with demands and are
>spreadeagled on the ground or across the bonnet of the car.
>
>I hope we don't get to that situation in England,
It went further than that for Stephen Waldoff.
> but at least the public in
>America know exactly how to behave when they are stopped.
>
>Making sudden movements (such as raising a chair-leg in a plastic bag) when
>facing an armed officer is a very reckless thing to do.
>
Just like jumping out of bed when you hear somebody smashing their way
into your house. How about just turning round when you hear somebody
shouting something?
>Anyone placed in the position of that officer who would NOT pull the trigger
>clearly places less value on their own life than that of the suspect.
>
Anyone who places himself in such a position that he can justify killing
no matter what the victim does, has planned to kill.
>
--
Mike
Alan
<bil...@salmicr.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>I don't know how true to life the American cop shows are but it seems that
>routine interactions between police and public there are often initiated at
>gunpoint.
>
>When police stop a car or a suspect, the officer is usually pointing a gun
>at them until the point that they completely comply with demands and are
>spreadeagled on the ground or across the bonnet of the car.
>
>I hope we don't get to that situation in England, but at least the public in
>America know exactly how to behave when they are stopped.
>
>Making sudden movements (such as raising a chair-leg in a plastic bag) when
>facing an armed officer is a very reckless thing to do.
So when you reach middle age and get a bit deaf, are quietly walking
home for tea with a long cylindrical item in a plastic bag, and you
turn to see what the commotion is behind you, it will be quite
acceptable for you to be killed?
Cos that is what happened to Harry Stanley.
>
>Anyone placed in the position of that officer who would NOT pull the trigger
>clearly places less value on their own life than that of the suspect.
>
Then the two police officers who shot an innocent man in the back
should justify their actions in court to a jury the same as anyone
else.
Since you obviously know little or nothing about the case I suggest
you visit
http://inquest.gn.apc.org/briefings/stanley.html
Alan
That is one probability.
Since the state officials have conspired to ensure there can be no
trial we will never know.
Andy Long
>
> "Andy Long" <dont....@all.thankyou> wrote in message
> news:PfRR9.61$Mo3....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
> >
> > "Mike" <mi...@fensoft.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:zkjGODAK...@fenlandsoftware.demon.co.uk...
> > > In article <9l5R9.2221$RY4.1...@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net>, Andy
> > > Long <dont....@all.thankyou> writes
> > > >
> > > >"Mike" <mi...@fensoft.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > >news:JtKYcBAv...@fenlandsoftware.demon.co.uk...
> > > >> In article <OiNQ9.524$Vb3....@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>, Andy
> > Long
> > > >> <dont....@all.thankyou> writes
> snip
>
> >> they didn't have to
> > > justify their actions in open court.
> >
> > Perhaps the officer that percieved the threat earliest was not infront
of
> > the the dead bloke?
>
> Agreed but why wasnt he charged or are you trying to tell us that a MoP in
> the same circumstances wouldnt have been
Im trying to think of when a civillian would be part of a team tasked with
the aprehension of a potentially armed suspect. I don't know why he wasn't
charged, presumably the information available indicated that there wouldn't
be any reasonble likelyhood of conviction.
The evidence is there to see. If there was a problem I'm sure someone would
dig it out.
>
> >I dont see how you
> > can simply equate the self defence between police and the public. The
> police
> > are sent to situations requiring self defence and once there are
expected
> to
> > act.
>
> And the public have to defend themselves as well but under very different
> rules
The rules are the same, the legislation is the same. The cops are invariably
placed in the situation with usually more information to hand than the MoP.
Andy Long
"Alan" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:s54h1v0hn4hdnktqs...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 5 Jan 2003 18:16:41 -0000, "Bill and Helen Rogers"
> <bil...@salmicr.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Making sudden movements (such as raising a chair-leg in a plastic bag)
when
> >facing an armed officer is a very reckless thing to do.
>
> So when you reach middle age and get a bit deaf, are quietly walking
> home for tea with a long cylindrical item in a plastic bag, and you
> turn to see what the commotion is behind you, it will be quite
> acceptable for you to be killed?
> Cos that is what happened to Harry Stanley.
Weren't the Police called to a report that he had a gun, and if he turned to
see the commotion behind him, how did the bullet get into the back of his
head?
> >
> >Anyone placed in the position of that officer who would NOT pull the
trigger
> >clearly places less value on their own life than that of the suspect.
> >
> Then the two police officers who shot an innocent man in the back
> should justify their actions in court to a jury the same as anyone
> else.
Certainly, if the information gives a reasonable chence of getting a
conviction.
>
> Since you obviously know little or nothing about the case I suggest
> you visit
>
> http://inquest.gn.apc.org/briefings/stanley.html
You fail to mention the sawn off shotgun the police were told was in the bag
by a witness, it doesnt say he was a bit deaf either. The commotion was
someone shouting twice, 'stop armed police' wasn't it? Who would you imagine
would shout that?
Andy Long
Like many cases, only those with sufficient evidence make it to court.
snip
> >
> >The problem here is that someone who is known to use guns, but may not
have
> >one when the police arrest him, will be percieved as a higher threat than
a
> >stranger to guns. I think the officers were in an unacceptable position
in
> >the first place but once there a sudden movement by the dead bloke might
be
> >enough to make them think he was bring a gun a to bear, esp in low light.
I
> >can see how the tunnel vision thing could be viable.
>
> Again someone who was unarmed and no threat to anyone was killed by
> armed police and again a killer walks away. Remind us again whop put
> the victim in danger.
In this case, I believe that the intelligence used was wrong, leading to
incorrect grounds for believe the suspect was armed. I could be wrong.
snip
> >Indeed, officers get a harsher time at court. The same standards are
> >applied, there are additional elements that are included. I dont see how
you
>
> In the case of Mr Stanley the complaint is that the case never came to
> court.
> >can simply equate the self defence between police and the public. The
police
> >are sent to situations requiring self defence and once there are expected
to
> >act.
>
> The public are placed in positions of needing self defence but are
> dissallowed. It seems we need a means of defence not only from the
> criminal but also from the police.
Self defense exists and its the same legislation the cops use.
Andy Long
> In article <PfRR9.61$Mo3....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>, Andy Long
> <dont....@all.thankyou> writes
> >
> >"Mike" <mi...@fensoft.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:zkjGODAK...@fenlandsoftware.demon.co.uk...
> >The problem here is that someone who is known to use guns, but may not
have
> >one when the police arrest him, will be percieved as a higher threat than
a
> >stranger to guns. I think the officers were in an unacceptable position
in
> >the first place but once there a sudden movement by the dead bloke might
be
> >enough to make them think he was bring a gun a to bear, esp in low light.
I
> >can see how the tunnel vision thing could be viable.
> >
> The point was that, if a firearms officer can manage to mistake
> *nothing* for a firearm, it wouldn't be unreasonable for an untrained
> householder to report that s/he thought an intruder/prowler were armed.
It comes down to the likelyhood of the person being armed. The intelligence
suggested he was IIRC. In low light you would not necessarily be able to see
the weapon in motion.
>
> Mr Ashley jumped out of bed when he heard sounds of people smashing
> their way into his home. An understandable reaction IMHO and one which
> the police should have been expecting. Their own actions put them in a
> position where Mr Ashley had no chance - anything he did could be used
> as an excuse to kill him.
Possibly, it would be odd for the Police to fail to identify themselves.
>
> As for the tunnel vision thing, I would question whether a person so
> afflicted should be permitted to use firearms in situations like that.
I think the reference was to a singular line of thought on that occasion,
rather than a visual defect.
>
> >> >
> >> >I agree the same standards should be applied to the police and the
> >public.
> >> >
> >> That's easy to say. Cases such as these two (amongst others) show that
> >> the same standards are not applied.
> >
> >Indeed, officers get a harsher time at court.
>
> They weren't even taken to court.
No. I was speaking generally.
>
> > The same standards are
> >applied, there are additional elements that are included. I dont see how
you
> >can simply equate the self defence between police and the public. The
police
> >are sent to situations requiring self defence and once there are expected
to
> >act.
> If a member of the public kills someone and claims "self defence", that
> claim is investigated by an independent organisation and, quite often,
> tested in court. When a police officer kills someone, the claim is not
> independently investigated and is not always tested in court. IIRC
> (BICBW) didn't a coroner's jury return a verdict of "unlawful killing"
> in Mr Stanley's case?
Yes, both the civi and the cops fail to make court.
I don't know, did they reach that verdict?
Mike
Long <dont....@all.thankyou> writes
>
>"simon" <si...@unikey.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:3e1852d6$1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>> Agreed but why wasnt he charged or are you trying to tell us that a MoP in
>> the same circumstances wouldnt have been
>
>Im trying to think of when a civillian would be part of a team tasked with
>the aprehension of a potentially armed suspect. I don't know why he wasn't
>charged, presumably the information available indicated that there wouldn't
>be any reasonble likelyhood of conviction.
>
Hardly surprising when the information to support charges against police
officers is gathered by police officers.
>>
[SNIP]
>>
>> Except they very rarely seem to get to court and when they do the CPS
>close
>> ranks and amazingly theres no evidence what a suprise!
>
>The evidence is there to see. If there was a problem I'm sure someone would
>dig it out.
What incentive do the police have to dig out evidence of police
corruption?
>>
>> >I dont see how you
>> > can simply equate the self defence between police and the public. The
>> police
>> > are sent to situations requiring self defence and once there are
>expected
>> to
>> > act.
>>
>> And the public have to defend themselves as well but under very different
>> rules
>
>The rules are the same, the legislation is the same.
The rules are not the same - the public are not permitted to carry any
form of weapon.
> The cops are invariably
>placed in the situation with usually more information to hand than the MoP.
>
They more have more information but not necessarily *accurate*
information. They claimed the unarmed Mr Stanley (a Scot IIRC) was an
armed Irishman.
>
--
Mike
Mike
Long <dont....@all.thankyou> writes
>
>> home for tea with a long cylindrical item in a plastic bag, and you
>> turn to see what the commotion is behind you, it will be quite
>> acceptable for you to be killed?
>> Cos that is what happened to Harry Stanley.
>
>Weren't the Police called to a report that he had a gun, and if he turned to
>see the commotion behind him, how did the bullet get into the back of his
>head?
Maybe they just shot him in the back without warning.
>> >
>> >Anyone placed in the position of that officer who would NOT pull the
>trigger
>> >clearly places less value on their own life than that of the suspect.
>> >
>> Then the two police officers who shot an innocent man in the back
>> should justify their actions in court to a jury the same as anyone
>> else.
>
>Certainly, if the information gives a reasonable chence of getting a
>conviction.
An *independent* investigation might have found sufficient evidence.
>>
>> Since you obviously know little or nothing about the case I suggest
>> you visit
>>
>> http://inquest.gn.apc.org/briefings/stanley.html
>
>You fail to mention the sawn off shotgun the police were told was in the bag
>by a witness, it doesnt say he was a bit deaf either.
An unsubstantiated claim by a witness who said he thought he saw a sawn
off shotgun.
> The commotion was
>someone shouting twice, 'stop armed police' wasn't it? Who would you imagine
>would shout that?
>
So, did he turn to see what the commotion was about or not? If he did,
how did he get shot in the back of the head?
--
Mike
simon
"Andy Long" <dont....@all.thankyou> wrote in message
snip
> > Since unlike a member of the public their actions were never tried in
> > open court we will never know. The fact remains that a man was killed
> > while going about his lawful business. The killers are known but their
> > defence has never been tested in court.
>
> Like many cases, only those with sufficient evidence make it to court.
There is plenty of evidence for both the case's but it still hasnt gone in
front of a judge and jury
snip
> > Again someone who was unarmed and no threat to anyone was killed by
> > armed police and again a killer walks away. Remind us again whop put
> > the victim in danger.
>
> In this case, I believe that the intelligence used was wrong, leading to
> incorrect grounds for believe the suspect was armed. I could be wrong.
No your right but again nobody was held accountable
snip
> > The public are placed in positions of needing self defence but are
> > dissallowed. It seems we need a means of defence not only from the
> > criminal but also from the police.
>
> Self defense exists and its the same legislation the cops use.
So if I take a shotgun a shoot someone in the back while they are holding
what might be a gun (after all thats what the guy in the pub said he had)
but is merely a cylinder in a bag you really expect me to believe it wouldnt
even get to court...pull the other one
Simon
simon
"Andy Long" <dont....@all.thankyou> wrote in message
>
> "Alan" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:s54h1v0hn4hdnktqs...@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 5 Jan 2003 18:16:41 -0000, "Bill and Helen Rogers"
> > <bil...@salmicr.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
snip
> Weren't the Police called to a report that he had a gun, and if he turned
to
> see the commotion behind him, how did the bullet get into the back of his
> head?
Yes, IIRC he started to turn (entirely normal reaction) and was gunned down
snip
> Certainly, if the information gives a reasonable chence of getting a
> conviction.
LOL, It does but it still doesnt get to court if a copper is envolved (if
you want a more black and white example see either the guildford 4 or
birmingham 6 where the police falsified evidence got caught and
miraclulously it wasnt in the public interest to prosecute, very different
attitude there than that given to maxine carr)
> >
> > Since you obviously know little or nothing about the case I suggest
> > you visit
> >
> > http://inquest.gn.apc.org/briefings/stanley.html
>
> You fail to mention the sawn off shotgun the police were told was in the
bag
> by a witness, it doesnt say he was a bit deaf either. The commotion was
> someone shouting twice, 'stop armed police' wasn't it? Who would you
imagine
> would shout that?
He was hearing impared (but it doesnt say how much) and its amazing what you
do and dont hear or what things get misheard as and I'm only deaf in one ear
and only since last april
Simon
simon
"Andy Long" <dont....@all.thankyou> wrote in message
Citizens arrest. Strange that whenever the police investigate there own it
rarely seems there is enough evidence to take to the cps and even when there
and the file is passed the cps will drop it as often as they can. If theres
nothing to hide put it infront of a jury and a judge
snip
> > Except they very rarely seem to get to court and when they do the CPS
> close
> > ranks and amazingly theres no evidence what a suprise!
>
> The evidence is there to see. If there was a problem I'm sure someone
would
> dig it out.
How, who is going to interview the police, who has access to the crime scene
to do forensic work, etc etc etc
snip
> > And the public have to defend themselves as well but under very
different
> > rules
>
> The rules are the same, the legislation is the same. The cops are
invariably
> placed in the situation with usually more information to hand than the
MoP.
The rules arent the same, The police have quite a selection of equipment
that the public arent allowed, The police have access to training that is
now illegal for a MoP in the UK, The police have a support infrastructure
and backup (allowing for less violent solutions) The police can literally
get away with falsifiying evidence and when caught wont be prosecuted, The
police will not treat a MoP the same way in a given situation as one of
there own
Simon
Mike
>> The point was that, if a firearms officer can manage to mistake
>> *nothing* for a firearm, it wouldn't be unreasonable for an untrained
>> householder to report that s/he thought an intruder/prowler were armed.
>
>It comes down to the likelyhood of the person being armed. The intelligence
>suggested he was IIRC.
When he was confronted, he wasn't armed. The observable facts should
always override the supposition.
> In low light you would not necessarily be able to see
>the weapon in motion.
>>
>> Mr Ashley jumped out of bed when he heard sounds of people smashing
>> their way into his home. An understandable reaction IMHO and one which
>> the police should have been expecting. Their own actions put them in a
>> position where Mr Ashley had no chance - anything he did could be used
>> as an excuse to kill him.
>
>Possibly, it would be odd for the Police to fail to identify themselves.
I don't see what difference that would have made. No matter what Mr
Ashley did, he was going to be shot.
>>
>> As for the tunnel vision thing, I would question whether a person so
>> afflicted should be permitted to use firearms in situations like that.
>
>I think the reference was to a singular line of thought on that occasion,
>rather than a visual defect.
Possibly, ISTR it being put forward as an excuse.
>>
[SNIP]
>> >act.
>> If a member of the public kills someone and claims "self defence", that
>> claim is investigated by an independent organisation and, quite often,
>> tested in court. When a police officer kills someone, the claim is not
>> independently investigated and is not always tested in court. IIRC
>> (BICBW) didn't a coroner's jury return a verdict of "unlawful killing"
>> in Mr Stanley's case?
>
>Yes, both the civi and the cops fail to make court.
>
>I don't know, did they reach that verdict?
>
I'm not absolutely sure (perhaps someone else could clarify) but ISTR
comments being made, when the jury in Mr Ashley's case were told they
couldn't return a verdict of "unlawful killing", that the police didn't
want *another* unlawful killing verdict.
>
--
Mike
Cynic
<dont....@all.thankyou> wrote:
>You fail to mention the sawn off shotgun the police were told was in the bag
>by a witness
Yes - an anonymous phone call from a guy in a pub.
"Officer - a guy called Andy Long has a concealed gun - honest.
Better send an ARU immediately."
If that's all it takes, it sounds a good way to use the police to
perform a free contract murder.
Don't you think that the police should take into account the
*reliability* of the information they have received before regarding
it as the gospel truth and getting all gung-ho?
> it doesnt say he was a bit deaf either.
There have been several reports that say he was. In any case, partial
deafness is a common enough affliction that police officers should
allow for it.
> The commotion was
>someone shouting twice, 'stop armed police' wasn't it? Who would you imagine
>would shout that?
What do you imagine your instinctive reaction would be if you - being
perfectly innocent and having no cause to believe you were a suspect -
heard such a shout whilst walking home? Would you *really* assume the
shout was directed at yourself and immediately lie on the pavement, or
is there perhaps a good chance that you would *first* look toward the
source of the shout to evaluate the situation?
Reports I have read stated that the shot that killed HS was fired less
than a second after the shout.
--
Cynic
PeteM
<bil...@salmicr.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>
>Making sudden movements (such as raising a chair-leg in a plastic bag) when
>facing an armed officer is a very reckless thing to do.
>
>Anyone placed in the position of that officer who would NOT pull the trigger
>clearly places less value on their own life than that of the suspect.
>
I assume the above is meant to be ironical.
--
PeteM
Bill and Helen Rogers
"PeteM" <Pe...@arcadia.net> wrote in message
news:tw6$tIAPmW...@arcadia.net...
I am not sure what you mean by 'ironical'.
The point I was trying to make is quite simply that I have every sympathy
for Mr Stanley BUT I also have sympathy for the officer that killed him.
Every armed officer must be thinking, 'There but for the grace of God go I'.
I have absolutely no doubt that the subsequent investigation (overseen by
the PCA) would have been meticulous and unbiased. If the CPS decided there
was insufficient evidence for a charge, then I am sure that decision was not
reached lightly as some kind of favour for the police.
Mike
<bil...@salmicr.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>
>The point I was trying to make is quite simply that I have every sympathy
>for Mr Stanley BUT I also have sympathy for the officer that killed him.
>Every armed officer must be thinking, 'There but for the grace of God go I'.
>
having just bought a cucumber (or any other roughly cylindrical object).
The next victim might be you.
>I have absolutely no doubt that the subsequent investigation (overseen by
>the PCA) would have been meticulous and unbiased.
ROFLMAO!
> If the CPS decided there
>was insufficient evidence for a charge, then I am sure that decision was not
>reached lightly as some kind of favour for the police.
>
The CPS can only reach a decision based on the evidence the *police*
gather.
--
Mike
PeteM
>
>"PeteM" <Pe...@arcadia.net> wrote in message
>news:tw6$tIAPmW...@arcadia.net...
>> In article <av9sq1$is5$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, Bill and Helen Rogers
>> <bil...@salmicr.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>> >
>> >Making sudden movements (such as raising a chair-leg in a plastic bag)
>when
>> >facing an armed officer is a very reckless thing to do.
>> >
>> >Anyone placed in the position of that officer who would NOT pull the
>trigger
>> >clearly places less value on their own life than that of the suspect.
>> >
>>
>> I assume the above is meant to be ironical.
>>
>> PeteM
>
>
>I am not sure what you mean by 'ironical'.
I thought you were joking. "Making sudden movements (such as raising a
chair-leg in a plastic bag) when facing an armed officer is a very
reckless thing to do" sounds like a line from an Inspector Clouseau
movie.
>
>The point I was trying to make is quite simply that I have every sympathy
>for Mr Stanley BUT I also have sympathy for the officer that killed him.
>Every armed officer must be thinking, 'There but for the grace of God go I'.
Not now Cato!!!
>
>I have absolutely no doubt that the subsequent investigation (overseen by
>the PCA) would have been meticulous and unbiased.
What a comedian. My ribs ache with irrepressible mirth.
>If the CPS decided there
>was insufficient evidence for a charge, then I am sure that decision was not
>reached lightly as some kind of favour for the police.
Lordy no.
--
PeteM
Steve Walker
> Anyone placed in the position of that officer who would NOT pull the
trigger
> clearly places less value on their own life than that of the suspect.
Quite right too - the reverse would be far less acceptable.
Steve Walker
> In article <avcfm4$6hf$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, Bill and Helen Rogers
> <bil...@salmicr.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>> I have absolutely no doubt that the subsequent investigation (overseen by
>> the PCA) would have been meticulous and unbiased.
>
> What a comedian. My ribs ache with irrepressible mirth.
ROFLMAO.....
Andy Long
>
> "Andy Long" <dont....@all.thankyou> wrote in message
> news:nX4S9.660$H94.2...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
> snip
>
> >
> > Like many cases, only those with sufficient evidence make it to court.
>
> There is plenty of evidence for both the case's but it still hasnt gone in
> front of a judge and jury
There are many cases that don't make it to court, lots with good evidence,
just not good enough to give a reasonable prospect of a conviction.
> snip
>
> > > Again someone who was unarmed and no threat to anyone was killed by
> > > armed police and again a killer walks away. Remind us again whop put
> > > the victim in danger.
> >
> > In this case, I believe that the intelligence used was wrong, leading to
> > incorrect grounds for believe the suspect was armed. I could be wrong.
>
> No your right but again nobody was held accountable
>
> snip
> > > The public are placed in positions of needing self defence but are
> > > dissallowed. It seems we need a means of defence not only from the
> > > criminal but also from the police.
> >
> > Self defense exists and its the same legislation the cops use.
>
> So if I take a shotgun a shoot someone in the back while they are holding
> what might be a gun (after all thats what the guy in the pub said he had)
> but is merely a cylinder in a bag you really expect me to believe it
wouldnt
> even get to court...pull the other one
Clearly not. You are neither empowered to carry weapons for that purpose nor
would you be expected to act directly on such information. It is a little
hard for you to say that you acted in self defence having taken it upon
yourself to approach someone you believed to be armed and then had to shoot
him.
Andy Long
> In article <CJ4S9.653$H94.2...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>, Andy
> Long <dont....@all.thankyou> writes
> >
> >"simon" <si...@unikey.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:3e1852d6$1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>
> >> Agreed but why wasnt he charged or are you trying to tell us that a MoP
in
> >> the same circumstances wouldnt have been
> >
> >Im trying to think of when a civillian would be part of a team tasked
with
> >the aprehension of a potentially armed suspect. I don't know why he
wasn't
> >charged, presumably the information available indicated that there
wouldn't
> >be any reasonble likelyhood of conviction.
> >
> Hardly surprising when the information to support charges against police
> officers is gathered by police officers.
Seems to be working for other crimes doesnt it. The kiddy porn for example,
or the NCS drugs thing.
snip
> >
> >The evidence is there to see. If there was a problem I'm sure someone
would
> >dig it out.
>
> What incentive do the police have to dig out evidence of police
> corruption?
The police arent the only ones with such evidence, its copied to the defence
at the very least. The press if they wanted to could examine such material
or even conduct investigations of thier own.
The incentive for the police to deal with corruption is to get rid of it. No
one wants it in the organisation, some will tolerate it and more will seek
to get rid of it.
snip
> >
> >The rules are the same, the legislation is the same.
>
> The rules are not the same - the public are not permitted to carry any
> form of weapon.
The rules are still the same weapon or not. Reasonable force is not
dependant on using a weapon or not. There are more factors than that to be
considered.
>
> > The cops are invariably
> >placed in the situation with usually more information to hand than the
MoP.
> >
> They more have more information but not necessarily *accurate*
> information. They claimed the unarmed Mr Stanley (a Scot IIRC) was an
> armed Irishman.
Yep, as told by the public, or one of them anyway.
Andy Long
> In article <015S9.661$H94.2...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>, Andy
> Long <dont....@all.thankyou> writes
> >
> >"Mike" <mi...@fensoft.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:NaOpREAw...@fenlandsoftware.demon.co.uk...
>
> >> The point was that, if a firearms officer can manage to mistake
> >> *nothing* for a firearm, it wouldn't be unreasonable for an untrained
> >> householder to report that s/he thought an intruder/prowler were armed.
> >
> >It comes down to the likelyhood of the person being armed. The
intelligence
> >suggested he was IIRC.
>
> When he was confronted, he wasn't armed. The observable facts should
> always override the supposition.
Like I said below, you may not see the weapon, even if it was there.
>
> > In low light you would not necessarily be able to see
> >the weapon in motion.
> >>
> >> Mr Ashley jumped out of bed when he heard sounds of people smashing
> >> their way into his home. An understandable reaction IMHO and one which
> >> the police should have been expecting. Their own actions put them in a
> >> position where Mr Ashley had no chance - anything he did could be used
> >> as an excuse to kill him.
> >
> >Possibly, it would be odd for the Police to fail to identify themselves.
>
> I don't see what difference that would have made. No matter what Mr
> Ashley did, he was going to be shot.
If he stayed still why would he have been?
> >>
> >> As for the tunnel vision thing, I would question whether a person so
> >> afflicted should be permitted to use firearms in situations like that.
> >
> >I think the reference was to a singular line of thought on that occasion,
> >rather than a visual defect.
>
> Possibly, ISTR it being put forward as an excuse.
Tunnel vision, the eyesight defect, would stop you being a police driver,
let alone an AFO.
snip
> >
> >Yes, both the civi and the cops fail to make court.
> >
> >I don't know, did they reach that verdict?
> >
> I'm not absolutely sure (perhaps someone else could clarify) but ISTR
> comments being made, when the jury in Mr Ashley's case were told they
> couldn't return a verdict of "unlawful killing", that the police didn't
> want *another* unlawful killing verdict.
The coroner may well instruct the jury, much like a judge. I thought someone
said that verdict was returned. Maybe it was a supportive verdict that was
returned but nobody liked that one so it was ignored?
Andy Long
> In article <JR4S9.657$H94.2...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>, Andy
> Long <dont....@all.thankyou> writes
> >
> >"Alan" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> >news:s54h1v0hn4hdnktqs...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> So when you reach middle age and get a bit deaf, are quietly walking
> >> home for tea with a long cylindrical item in a plastic bag, and you
> >> turn to see what the commotion is behind you, it will be quite
> >> acceptable for you to be killed?
> >> Cos that is what happened to Harry Stanley.
> >
> >Weren't the Police called to a report that he had a gun, and if he turned
to
> >see the commotion behind him, how did the bullet get into the back of his
> >head?
>
> Maybe they just shot him in the back without warning.
Maybe he turned round shouting "I'm gonna kill you pig bastards", lost his
balance and in the moment the shot was fired turned too far round and was
hit from behind.
>
> >> >
> >> >Anyone placed in the position of that officer who would NOT pull the
> >trigger
> >> >clearly places less value on their own life than that of the suspect.
> >> >
> >> Then the two police officers who shot an innocent man in the back
> >> should justify their actions in court to a jury the same as anyone
> >> else.
> >
> >Certainly, if the information gives a reasonable chence of getting a
> >conviction.
>
> An *independent* investigation might have found sufficient evidence.
Or it might not.
>
> >>
> >> Since you obviously know little or nothing about the case I suggest
> >> you visit
> >>
> >> http://inquest.gn.apc.org/briefings/stanley.html
> >
> >You fail to mention the sawn off shotgun the police were told was in the
bag
> >by a witness, it doesnt say he was a bit deaf either.
>
> An unsubstantiated claim by a witness who said he thought he saw a sawn
> off shotgun.
A member of the public says they have seen a shotgun in a bag and that bloke
over there is the one who has it.
Id be happy to challenge someone based on that info. In fact much of my work
is excatly that.An allegation from a member of the public, who has no reason
to lie should be taken at face value.
>
> > The commotion was
> >someone shouting twice, 'stop armed police' wasn't it? Who would you
imagine
> >would shout that?
> >
> So, did he turn to see what the commotion was about or not? If he did,
> how did he get shot in the back of the head?
I havent read anything that says he was, some other poster said he was shot
in the back of the head. I have been trying to get my head round that. BTW
the head is not a target area.
Andy Long
>
> "Andy Long" <dont....@all.thankyou> wrote in message
> news:JR4S9.657$H94.2...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
> >
> > "Alan" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> > news:s54h1v0hn4hdnktqs...@4ax.com...
> > > On Sun, 5 Jan 2003 18:16:41 -0000, "Bill and Helen Rogers"
> > > <bil...@salmicr.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> snip
>
> > Weren't the Police called to a report that he had a gun, and if he
turned
> to
> > see the commotion behind him, how did the bullet get into the back of
his
> > head?
>
> Yes, IIRC he started to turn (entirely normal reaction) and was gunned
down
> snip
Lots of qualification going on here, IIRC, ISTR, maybe, perhaps, wasnt he...
>
> > Certainly, if the information gives a reasonable chence of getting a
> > conviction.
>
> LOL, It does but it still doesnt get to court if a copper is envolved (if
> you want a more black and white example see either the guildford 4 or
> birmingham 6 where the police falsified evidence got caught and
> miraclulously it wasnt in the public interest to prosecute, very different
> attitude there than that given to maxine carr)
There is a world of difference between evidence suitable to make a
conviction unsafe and that required to prove an offence beyond all
reasonable doubt.
>
> > >
> > > Since you obviously know little or nothing about the case I suggest
> > > you visit
> > >
> > > http://inquest.gn.apc.org/briefings/stanley.html
> >
> > You fail to mention the sawn off shotgun the police were told was in the
> bag
> > by a witness, it doesnt say he was a bit deaf either. The commotion was
> > someone shouting twice, 'stop armed police' wasn't it? Who would you
> imagine
> > would shout that?
>
> He was hearing impared (but it doesnt say how much) and its amazing what
you
> do and dont hear or what things get misheard as and I'm only deaf in one
ear
> and only since last april
The article doesnt day he was hearing impaired, where did you read that, can
we have a link please?
Andy Long
>
> "Andy Long" <dont....@all.thankyou> wrote in message
> news:CJ4S9.653$H94.2...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
> >
> > "simon" <si...@unikey.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:3e1852d6$1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> > >
> >
> > Im trying to think of when a civillian would be part of a team tasked
with
> > the aprehension of a potentially armed suspect. I don't know why he
wasn't
> > charged, presumably the information available indicated that there
> wouldn't
> > be any reasonble likelyhood of conviction.
>
> Citizens arrest. Strange that whenever the police investigate there own it
> rarely seems there is enough evidence to take to the cps and even when
there
> and the file is passed the cps will drop it as often as they can. If
theres
> nothing to hide put it infront of a jury and a judge
That would a nice transparent way of doing things, but it would then be
different to the all the other cases are brought to court and the screening
that goes on with them.
Why did you include citizen's arrest at the beginning, it isnt a response to
the paragraph above it surely?
> snip
>
> > > Except they very rarely seem to get to court and when they do the CPS
> > close
> > > ranks and amazingly theres no evidence what a suprise!
> >
> > The evidence is there to see. If there was a problem I'm sure someone
> would
> > dig it out.
>
> How, who is going to interview the police, who has access to the crime
scene
> to do forensic work, etc etc etc
The investigators interview the police, sometimes following a duty
statement.
The FSS do the forensic work, who are employed by the police. The records of
thier work are held for later review.
Once the work is done the information can be reviewed. How have previous
cases of evidence falsification or even the production of doubt on forensic
basis been shown?
Its perfectly possible, but there will always be the problem for you, that
an honestly held belief can be sufficient, in the absence of something to
the contrary, for the police officer who is placed in these circumstances to
show he was acting in self defence.
> snip
>
> > > And the public have to defend themselves as well but under very
> different
> > > rules
> >
> > The rules are the same, the legislation is the same. The cops are
> invariably
> > placed in the situation with usually more information to hand than the
> MoP.
>
> The rules arent the same, The police have quite a selection of equipment
> that the public arent allowed, The police have access to training that is
> now illegal for a MoP in the UK, The police have a support infrastructure
> and backup (allowing for less violent solutions) The police can literally
> get away with falsifiying evidence and when caught wont be prosecuted, The
> police will not treat a MoP the same way in a given situation as one of
> there own
The public dont get tasked with making safe a nutter or other situations im
sure you don't need me to spell out.
The public don't need firearms training.
The Public falsify evidence all the time, lie in interview, in court and get
friends to help them do it. No prosecutions for many of those either.
The police do treat the public and officers who are involved in crime,
either as the victim or offender, the same. There is often greater impetus
to get officers stuck on than the public, since no one cares if the odd
public citizen gets away with a borderline case before court, but everyone
seems to go potty when the same thing happens to officers.
Andy Long
"Cynic" <cy...@none.none> wrote in message
news:nhqi1vkmlsvidi4m3...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 01:24:17 -0000, "Andy Long"
> <dont....@all.thankyou> wrote:
>
> >You fail to mention the sawn off shotgun the police were told was in the
bag
> >by a witness
>
> Yes - an anonymous phone call from a guy in a pub.
The article didnt say so.
>
> "Officer - a guy called Andy Long has a concealed gun - honest.
> Better send an ARU immediately."
>
> If that's all it takes, it sounds a good way to use the police to
> perform a free contract murder.
>
> Don't you think that the police should take into account the
> *reliability* of the information they have received before regarding
> it as the gospel truth and getting all gung-ho?
Its rare that the reliability of the information can be tested reliably.
>
> > it doesnt say he was a bit deaf either.
>
> There have been several reports that say he was. In any case, partial
> deafness is a common enough affliction that police officers should
> allow for it.
They do shout the instructions.
>
> > The commotion was
> >someone shouting twice, 'stop armed police' wasn't it? Who would you
imagine
> >would shout that?
>
> What do you imagine your instinctive reaction would be if you - being
> perfectly innocent and having no cause to believe you were a suspect -
> heard such a shout whilst walking home? Would you *really* assume the
> shout was directed at yourself and immediately lie on the pavement, or
> is there perhaps a good chance that you would *first* look toward the
> source of the shout to evaluate the situation?
If someone were to shout "Armed Police Stand Still", would I run, turn
around or stand still? I'd be the one standing still.
>
> Reports I have read stated that the shot that killed HS was fired less
> than a second after the shout.
I have no reliable information, just reports from people in this newsgroup,
which in all fairness doesnt excatly epitomise reliability. The only reason
I made responses in the first place was because posters were just chucking
up any old rubbish that popped into their head without any references at
all.
Alan
<dont....@all.thankyou> wrote:
>
>"Cynic" <cy...@none.none> wrote in message
>news:nhqi1vkmlsvidi4m3...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 01:24:17 -0000, "Andy Long"
>> <dont....@all.thankyou> wrote:
>>
>> >You fail to mention the sawn off shotgun the police were told was in the
>bag
>> >by a witness
>>
>> Yes - an anonymous phone call from a guy in a pub.
>
>The article didnt say so.
>>
>> "Officer - a guy called Andy Long has a concealed gun - honest.
>> Better send an ARU immediately."
>>
>> If that's all it takes, it sounds a good way to use the police to
>> perform a free contract murder.
>>
>> Don't you think that the police should take into account the
>> *reliability* of the information they have received before regarding
>> it as the gospel truth and getting all gung-ho?
>
>Its rare that the reliability of the information can be tested reliably.
>>
>> > it doesnt say he was a bit deaf either.
>>
>> There have been several reports that say he was. In any case, partial
>> deafness is a common enough affliction that police officers should
>> allow for it.
>
>They do shout the instructions.
I am deaf and shouted anything means nothing to me when in the street.
It's just a noise. I would be most unlikeley to understand any words.
>>
>> > The commotion was
>> >someone shouting twice, 'stop armed police' wasn't it? Who would you
>imagine
>> >would shout that?
>>
>> What do you imagine your instinctive reaction would be if you - being
>> perfectly innocent and having no cause to believe you were a suspect -
>> heard such a shout whilst walking home? Would you *really* assume the
>> shout was directed at yourself and immediately lie on the pavement, or
>> is there perhaps a good chance that you would *first* look toward the
>> source of the shout to evaluate the situation?
>
>If someone were to shout "Armed Police Stand Still", would I run, turn
>around or stand still? I'd be the one standing still.
I would think most people would turn and look towards the source of
the commotion.
>>
>> Reports I have read stated that the shot that killed HS was fired less
>> than a second after the shout.
>
>I have no reliable information, just reports from people in this newsgroup,
>which in all fairness doesnt excatly epitomise reliability. The only reason
>I made responses in the first place was because posters were just chucking
>up any old rubbish that popped into their head without any references at
>all.
>
I have posted all the reports available on line over the years. Here
is a site that gives one version.
http://inquest.gn.apc.org/briefings/stanley.html
The fact remains that a man was slaughtered in the street and the
people responsible have not had to answer to a court
Alan
<dont....@all.thankyou> wrote:
>
>"Mike" <mi...@fensoft.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:zDn2H6AV...@fenlandsoftware.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <JR4S9.657$H94.2...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>, Andy
>> Long <dont....@all.thankyou> writes
>> >
>> >"Alan" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>> >news:s54h1v0hn4hdnktqs...@4ax.com...
>> >>
>> >> So when you reach middle age and get a bit deaf, are quietly walking
>> >> home for tea with a long cylindrical item in a plastic bag, and you
>> >> turn to see what the commotion is behind you, it will be quite
>> >> acceptable for you to be killed?
>> >> Cos that is what happened to Harry Stanley.
>> >
>> >Weren't the Police called to a report that he had a gun, and if he turned
>to
>> >see the commotion behind him, how did the bullet get into the back of his
>> >head?
>>
>> Maybe they just shot him in the back without warning.
>
>Maybe he turned round shouting "I'm gonna kill you pig bastards", lost his
>balance and in the moment the shot was fired turned too far round and was
>hit from behind.
Maybe the two policemen just walked up behind him and murdered him.
Seems most likely given what we know of the case.
>>
>> >> >
>> >> >Anyone placed in the position of that officer who would NOT pull the
>> >trigger
>> >> >clearly places less value on their own life than that of the suspect.
>> >> >
>> >> Then the two police officers who shot an innocent man in the back
>> >> should justify their actions in court to a jury the same as anyone
>> >> else.
>> >
>> >Certainly, if the information gives a reasonable chence of getting a
>> >conviction.
>>
>> An *independent* investigation might have found sufficient evidence.
>
>Or it might not.
Since there was never an independent investigation we will never know.
The suspicion remains that two police officers committed a heinous
crime and walked away
>>
>> >>
>> >> Since you obviously know little or nothing about the case I suggest
>> >> you visit
>> >>
>> >> http://inquest.gn.apc.org/briefings/stanley.html
>> >
>> >You fail to mention the sawn off shotgun the police were told was in the
Alan G
Cynic
<dont....@all.thankyou> wrote:
>> What do you imagine your instinctive reaction would be if you - being
>> perfectly innocent and having no cause to believe you were a suspect -
>> heard such a shout whilst walking home? Would you *really* assume the
>> shout was directed at yourself and immediately lie on the pavement, or
>> is there perhaps a good chance that you would *first* look toward the
>> source of the shout to evaluate the situation?
>If someone were to shout "Armed Police Stand Still", would I run, turn
>around or stand still? I'd be the one standing still.
I'd take a bet on that. I bet you that if you were to hear such a
shout from a distance *completely unexpectedly* in an otherwise quiet
street, your first *instinctive* reaction would be to turn toward the
source of the shout. You would start to turn before the meaning of
the words had sunk in. It is an automatic response. Try it on
someone you know completely out of the blue. A louder or closer sound
causes an instinctive cringing away.
Tell me this: If you were chasing a burglar on foot, and the
burglar's mate just behind you were to shout "Armed police, stand
still," how long would you remain in a statue-like position?
--
Cynic
Cynic
<dont....@all.thankyou> wrote:
>That would a nice transparent way of doing things, but it would then be
>different to the all the other cases are brought to court and the screening
>that goes on with them.
Huh? Cite a single case where a completely innocent person was
deliberately killed by a member of the public that did *not* result in
a court case.
This tragedy occured because there were *serious* mistakes made in the
decisions taken by the senior officers. Firstly the reaction to an
unsupported phone call was grossly inappropriate, and secondly the
armed police should never have been deployed or positioned in the
manner that they were.
IMO those mistakes were serious enough to amount to culpable homicide.
It may well be that the police officer who pulled the trigger was
forced into a "lose-lose" situation and should not be put on trial -
but failing that, his superior officers certainly should be charged
with a crime.
--
Cynic
simon
"Andy Long" <dont....@all.thankyou> wrote in message
>
> "simon" <si...@unikey.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3e18ff16$1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> >
> > "Andy Long" <dont....@all.thankyou> wrote in message
> > news:nX4S9.660$H94.2...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
snip
> Clearly not. You are neither empowered to carry weapons for that purpose
nor
> would you be expected to act directly on such information.
I'm not but I know people who do have shotgun licenses as to being empowered
to carry or act surely that comes under citizens arrest
> It is a little
> hard for you to say that you acted in self defence having taken it upon
> yourself to approach someone you believed to be armed and then had to
shoot
> him.
Not my self defense others
Simon
simon
"Andy Long" <dont....@all.thankyou> wrote in message
>
> "Mike" <mi...@fensoft.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:zKkm1+AY...@fenlandsoftware.demon.co.uk...
> > In article <015S9.661$H94.2...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>, Andy
> > Long <dont....@all.thankyou> writes
> > >
> > >"Mike" <mi...@fensoft.co.uk> wrote in message
> > When he was confronted, he wasn't armed. The observable facts should
> > always override the supposition.
>
> Like I said below, you may not see the weapon, even if it was there.
He was naked where was he hiding it
snip
> The coroner may well instruct the jury, much like a judge. I thought
someone
> said that verdict was returned. Maybe it was a supportive verdict that was
> returned but nobody liked that one so it was ignored?
IIRC they wanted to return an unlawful killing verdict and where told they
couldnt, Rather makes juries a bit pointless when you tell them what the
verdict must be
Simon
simon
"Andy Long" <dont....@all.thankyou> wrote in message
>
> "simon" <si...@unikey.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3e190103$1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> >
> > "Andy Long" <dont....@all.thankyou> wrote in message
> > news:JR4S9.657$H94.2...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
> > >
> > > "Alan" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> > > news:s54h1v0hn4hdnktqs...@4ax.com...
> > > > On Sun, 5 Jan 2003 18:16:41 -0000, "Bill and Helen Rogers"
> > > > <bil...@salmicr.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
snip
> > LOL, It does but it still doesnt get to court if a copper is envolved
(if
> > you want a more black and white example see either the guildford 4 or
> > birmingham 6 where the police falsified evidence got caught and
> > miraclulously it wasnt in the public interest to prosecute, very
different
> > attitude there than that given to maxine carr)
>
> There is a world of difference between evidence suitable to make a
> conviction unsafe and that required to prove an offence beyond all
> reasonable doubt.
They proved that the officer had deliberatly falsified a confession so why
hasnt he gone to court officially its not in the public interest while Carr
who isnt a copper is on remand for the same offence
Simon
PeteM
>
>"Mike" <mi...@fensoft.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:zDn2H6AV...@fenlandsoftware.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <JR4S9.657$H94.2...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>, Andy
>> Long <dont....@all.thankyou> writes
>> >
>> >"Alan" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>> >news:s54h1v0hn4hdnktqs...@4ax.com...
>> >>
>> >> So when you reach middle age and get a bit deaf, are quietly walking
>> >> home for tea with a long cylindrical item in a plastic bag, and you
>> >> turn to see what the commotion is behind you, it will be quite
>> >> acceptable for you to be killed?
>> >> Cos that is what happened to Harry Stanley.
>> >
>> >Weren't the Police called to a report that he had a gun, and if he turned
>to
>> >see the commotion behind him, how did the bullet get into the back of his
>> >head?
>>
>> Maybe they just shot him in the back without warning.
>
>Maybe he turned round shouting "I'm gonna kill you pig bastards", lost his
>balance and in the moment the shot was fired turned too far round and was
>hit from behind.
For heavens' sake Andy. He was holding a bit of wood in a bag, for Gods'
sake. Is he really going to threaten to kill some armed police?
Must you perform these contortions to try and defend what everybody
knows was indefensible? Can't you just admit that they fucked up
royally? You can still maintain that they shouldn't be prosecuted
(although IMV you'd be wrong) but at least that position would not be as
preposterous as the one you are defending. Nobody else but a police
officer would even dream of trying to defend it.
--
PeteM
simon
"Andy Long" <dont....@all.thankyou> wrote in message
>
> "simon" <si...@unikey.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3e190...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> >
> > "Andy Long" <dont....@all.thankyou> wrote in message
> > news:CJ4S9.653$H94.2...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
> > >
> > > "simon" <si...@unikey.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:3e1852d6$1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
snip
> > and the file is passed the cps will drop it as often as they can. If
> theres
> > nothing to hide put it infront of a jury and a judge
>
> That would a nice transparent way of doing things, but it would then be
> different to the all the other cases are brought to court and the
screening
> that goes on with them.
given that its investigated by the police and in the abscence of an
independant investigtion perhaps they should all go in front of a judge it
might restore some faith in the force
>
> Why did you include citizen's arrest at the beginning, it isnt a response
to
> the paragraph above it surely?
Yes it was
snip
> The investigators interview the police, sometimes following a duty
> statement.
>
> The FSS do the forensic work, who are employed by the police. The records
of
> thier work are held for later review.
>
> Once the work is done the information can be reviewed. How have previous
> cases of evidence falsification or even the production of doubt on
forensic
> basis been shown?
The investigators are the police, the records are held (and altered to suit
on occasion) by the police the FSS are employed by and report to the police,
Even when they are caught falsifying evidence they arent charged
> Its perfectly possible, but there will always be the problem for you, that
> an honestly held belief can be sufficient, in the absence of something to
> the contrary, for the police officer who is placed in these circumstances
to
> show he was acting in self defence.
No but I'd like to see the same latitude provided to the public and/or
independant investigation
snip
> The public dont get tasked with making safe a nutter or other situations
im
> sure you don't need me to spell out.
So who does while we wait 30 mins for a copper
>
> The public don't need firearms training.
No they dont and now cant get it in the UK, As with any dangerous item those
who are trained in its use should be held to a higher standard than those
who arent
>
> The Public falsify evidence all the time, lie in interview, in court and
get
> friends to help them do it. No prosecutions for many of those either.
Agreed but theydontresultin people spending years in jail nor are they in a
position to decide if they are prosecutedor not while the police arer
>
> The police do treat the public and officers who are involved in crime,
> either as the victim or offender, the same. There is often greater impetus
> to get officers stuck on than the public, since no one cares if the odd
> public citizen gets away with a borderline case before court, but everyone
> seems to go potty when the same thing happens to officers.
I cannot think of a single case where a MoP has gunned down someone and not
been charged
Simon
Alan
<dont....@all.thankyou> wrote:
>
>"simon" <si...@unikey.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:3e18ff16$1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>>
>> So if I take a shotgun a shoot someone in the back while they are holding
>> what might be a gun (after all thats what the guy in the pub said he had)
>> but is merely a cylinder in a bag you really expect me to believe it
>wouldnt
>> even get to court...pull the other one
>
>Clearly not. You are neither empowered to carry weapons for that purpose nor
>would you be expected to act directly on such information. It is a little
>hard for you to say that you acted in self defence having taken it upon
>yourself to approach someone you believed to be armed and then had to shoot
>him.
>
It is just as hard to believe two armed police officers approached a
man they thought was armed and put themselves in a position where they
could claim their lives were in danger. Unless they were seeking an
excuse to murder someone.
Anyone else would have faced a judge and jury. It is now open season
on anyone not wearing a uniform.
Andy Long
> On Tue, 7 Jan 2003 06:13:48 -0000, "Andy Long"
> <dont....@all.thankyou> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Cynic" <cy...@none.none> wrote in message
> >news:nhqi1vkmlsvidi4m3...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 01:24:17 -0000, "Andy Long"
> >> <dont....@all.thankyou> wrote:
> >
> >They do shout the instructions.
>
> I am deaf and shouted anything means nothing to me when in the street.
> It's just a noise. I would be most unlikeley to understand any words.
The person under discussion was not deaf.
snip
> I have posted all the reports available on line over the years. Here
> is a site that gives one version.
> http://inquest.gn.apc.org/briefings/stanley.html
>
> The fact remains that a man was slaughtered in the street and the
> people responsible have not had to answer to a court
http://www.cps.gov.uk/Home/PressArchive/TheDeathOfHenry.htm
That might answer your questions.
simon
"Andy Long" <dont....@all.thankyou> wrote in message
> > The fact remains that a man was slaughtered in the street and the
> > people responsible have not had to answer to a court
>
> http://www.cps.gov.uk/Home/PressArchive/TheDeathOfHenry.htm
>
> That might answer your questions.
No but I have got some new ones though, It appears that the officers one and
only defence is if they where acting as a 'reasonable' man would in that
situation but especially for GBH with intent.
In general does the discription of 'reasonable' vary with the training
recieved?
Since when do the CPS decide which defence's should be allowed and why?
Simon
Alan
<dont....@all.thankyou> wrote:
>
>"Alan" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>news:t91l1vsqcmpimfqs3...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 7 Jan 2003 06:13:48 -0000, "Andy Long"
>> <dont....@all.thankyou> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Cynic" <cy...@none.none> wrote in message
>> >news:nhqi1vkmlsvidi4m3...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 01:24:17 -0000, "Andy Long"
>> >> <dont....@all.thankyou> wrote:
>snip
>> >
>> >They do shout the instructions.
>>
>> I am deaf and shouted anything means nothing to me when in the street.
>> It's just a noise. I would be most unlikeley to understand any words.
>
>The person under discussion was not deaf.
>
It was stated in some reports he was hard of hearing. That would mean
the spoken word being often unintelligable to him.
The fact that anyone may not be deaf should not give the police carte
blanche to gun down those who are. Police training obviously does not
make allowances for errors by police officers or the disabilities of
others.
>snip
>> I have posted all the reports available on line over the years. Here
>> is a site that gives one version.
>> http://inquest.gn.apc.org/briefings/stanley.html
>>
>> The fact remains that a man was slaughtered in the street and the
>> people responsible have not had to answer to a court
>
>http://www.cps.gov.uk/Home/PressArchive/TheDeathOfHenry.htm
>
>That might answer your questions.
Nope.
It just reinforces the demand for a trial in *open* court where all
the evidence can be tested in front of a jury. This is not justice.
This is a priivate hearing biased in favour of the whole state
apparatus.
The CPS has claimed it is acting on the advice of a QC in not
prosecuting. There are a number of MPs who are lawyers and who have
called for the case to be decided in open court. I would believ they
have as much if not more understanding of the law as any HO QC. It's
a disgusting cover up. At the very least the officers concerned have
a case to answer on grounds of negligence and manslaughter.
If the agents of the state can kill with impunity and not be required
to answer to the same sytem of justice as the rest of us we are
definitely in a police state.
Mike
>>
>> When he was confronted, he wasn't armed. The observable facts should
>> always override the supposition.
>
>Like I said below, you may not see the weapon, even if it was there.
>
>>
[SNIP]
>>
>> I don't see what difference that would have made. No matter what Mr
>> Ashley did, he was going to be shot.
>
>If he stayed still why would he have been?
>
their way into his house. What would you do if you were in bed and you
heard someone breaking in?
>> >>
>> >> As for the tunnel vision thing, I would question whether a person so
>> >> afflicted should be permitted to use firearms in situations like that.
>> >
>> >I think the reference was to a singular line of thought on that occasion,
>> >rather than a visual defect.
>>
>> Possibly, ISTR it being put forward as an excuse.
>
>Tunnel vision, the eyesight defect, would stop you being a police driver,
>let alone an AFO.
>
It's possible the term was used metaphorically but, when I first read
it, I presumed it was meant literally.
>snip
>
>> >
>> >Yes, both the civi and the cops fail to make court.
>> >
>> >I don't know, did they reach that verdict?
>> >
>> I'm not absolutely sure (perhaps someone else could clarify) but ISTR
>> comments being made, when the jury in Mr Ashley's case were told they
>> couldn't return a verdict of "unlawful killing", that the police didn't
>> want *another* unlawful killing verdict.
>
>The coroner may well instruct the jury, much like a judge. I thought someone
>said that verdict was returned.
*If* the verdict on Mr Stanley was "unlawful killing" (I'll try to check
this) and given that the killers are known, they should be charged.
> Maybe it was a supportive verdict that was
>returned but nobody liked that one so it was ignored?
>
>
--
Mike
Mike
<dont....@all.thankyou> writes
>
>
>Maybe he turned round shouting "I'm gonna kill you pig bastards", lost his
>balance and in the moment the shot was fired turned too far round and was
>hit from behind.
You're clutching at straws. If he had been threatening the police
officers (as they alleged) he would have been shot in the front.
>>
[SNIP]
>>
>> An *independent* investigation might have found sufficient evidence.
>
>Or it might not.
Possibly, we can't be sure either way. I can understand the police not
wanting to take the risk though.
>>
[SNIP]
>>
>> An unsubstantiated claim by a witness who said he thought he saw a sawn
>> off shotgun.
>
>A member of the public says they have seen a shotgun in a bag and that bloke
>over there is the one who has it.
>
Worth remembering if I ever want somebody "dealt with".
>Id be happy to challenge someone based on that info. In fact much of my work
>is excatly that.An allegation from a member of the public, who has no reason
>to lie should be taken at face value.
Ho do you know the MoP had no reason to lie? Perhaps Mr Stanley had
just accidentally knocked the informant's pint over in the pub.
>>
>> > The commotion was
>> >someone shouting twice, 'stop armed police' wasn't it? Who would you
>imagine
>> >would shout that?
>> >
>> So, did he turn to see what the commotion was about or not? If he did,
>> how did he get shot in the back of the head?
>
>I havent read anything that says he was, some other poster said he was shot
>in the back of the head. I have been trying to get my head round that. BTW
>the head is not a target area.
>
Innocent members of the public are not meant to be targets either.
--
Mike
Mike
<m...@privacy.net> writes
>>
>I have posted all the reports available on line over the years. Here
>is a site that gives one version.
>http://inquest.gn.apc.org/briefings/stanley.html
>
--
Mike
Mike
<dont....@all.thankyou> writes
>
>> officers is gathered by police officers.
>
>Seems to be working for other crimes doesnt it. The kiddy porn for example,
>or the NCS drugs thing.
In at least some of the cases, the initial investigations *were*
independent - the information came from the FBI. Also, child
pornography is a highly emotive thing so the investigation team's
disgust is likely to overcome their inclination to protect their
colleagues.
>snip
>> >
>> >The evidence is there to see. If there was a problem I'm sure someone
>would
>> >dig it out.
>>
>> What incentive do the police have to dig out evidence of police
>> corruption?
>
>The police arent the only ones with such evidence, its copied to the defence
>at the very least.
It can't be copied to the defence if it isn't gathered in the first
place.
> The press if they wanted to could examine such material
>or even conduct investigations of thier own.
They often do and are often successful in exposing corruption.
>
>The incentive for the police to deal with corruption is to get rid of it. No
>one wants it in the organisation, some will tolerate it and more will seek
>to get rid of it.
>
>snip
>
>> >
>> >The rules are the same, the legislation is the same.
>>
>> The rules are not the same - the public are not permitted to carry any
>> form of weapon.
>
>The rules are still the same weapon or not. Reasonable force is not
>dependant on using a weapon or not. There are more factors than that to be
>considered.
>>
>> > The cops are invariably
>> >placed in the situation with usually more information to hand than the
>MoP.
>> >
>> They more have more information but not necessarily *accurate*
>> information. They claimed the unarmed Mr Stanley (a Scot IIRC) was an
>> armed Irishman.
>
>Yep, as told by the public, or one of them anyway.
>
In an anonymous, unsubstantiated, phone call.
--
Mike
Mike
<dont....@all.thankyou> writes
>
>"Cynic" <cy...@none.none> wrote in message
>news:nhqi1vkmlsvidi4m3...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 01:24:17 -0000, "Andy Long"
>>
>> perfectly innocent and having no cause to believe you were a suspect -
>> heard such a shout whilst walking home? Would you *really* assume the
>> shout was directed at yourself and immediately lie on the pavement, or
>> is there perhaps a good chance that you would *first* look toward the
>> source of the shout to evaluate the situation?
>
>If someone were to shout "Armed Police Stand Still", would I run, turn
>around or stand still? I'd be the one standing still.
*You* might but most people, if they heard those actual words but had no
reason to believe the shout was direct to them, would turn to see who
was being challenged. If they just heard a shout, but were unable to
distinguish the words, they are likely to turn to find if the call was
directed to them.
>>
>> Reports I have read stated that the shot that killed HS was fired less
>> than a second after the shout.
>
>I have no reliable information, just reports from people in this newsgroup,
>which in all fairness doesnt excatly epitomise reliability.
It's just as reliable as the information used to justify killing Mr
Stanley.
> The only reason
>I made responses in the first place was because posters were just chucking
>up any old rubbish that popped into their head without any references at
>all.
>
>
--
Mike
Mike
<dont....@all.thankyou> writes
>
>"simon" <si...@unikey.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:3e190...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>> rarely seems there is enough evidence to take to the cps and even when
>there
>> and the file is passed the cps will drop it as often as they can. If
>theres
>> nothing to hide put it infront of a jury and a judge
>
>That would a nice transparent way of doing things, but it would then be
>different to the all the other cases are brought to court and the screening
>that goes on with them.
>
allegations of criminal behaviour against the police. Absent an
independent investigation, every allegation against the police of a
criminal offence should be put before a court - if you've nothing to
hide, you've nothing to fear.
>Why did you include citizen's arrest at the beginning, it isnt a response to
>the paragraph above it surely?
>> snip
>>
>> > > Except they very rarely seem to get to court and when they do the CPS
>> > close
>> > > ranks and amazingly theres no evidence what a suprise!
>> >
>> > The evidence is there to see. If there was a problem I'm sure someone
>> would
>> > dig it out.
>>
>> How, who is going to interview the police, who has access to the crime
>scene
>> to do forensic work, etc etc etc
>
>The investigators interview the police, sometimes following a duty
>statement.
The *police* investigators interview the police.
>
>The FSS do the forensic work, who are employed by the police. The records of
>thier work are held for later review.
>
The records are held (or lost) by the police.
>Once the work is done the information can be reviewed. How have previous
>cases of evidence falsification or even the production of doubt on forensic
>basis been shown?
Either the information is released in error or an honest police officer
released it.
>Its perfectly possible, but there will always be the problem for you, that
>an honestly held belief can be sufficient, in the absence of something to
>the contrary, for the police officer who is placed in these circumstances to
>show he was acting in self defence.
>
The problem is that the "absence of something to the contrary" could
easily be due to the investigators deliberately overlooking it. Why
would the police want to find evidence the could be used to support a
case against the police?
>
[SNIP]
>
>The public dont get tasked with making safe a nutter or other situations im
>sure you don't need me to spell out.
>
The public are often left to attempt to protect themselves while waiting
for the police.
>The public don't need firearms training.
>
>The Public falsify evidence all the time, lie in interview, in court and get
>friends to help them do it. No prosecutions for many of those either.
>
If you believe that, how can you justify accepting, without question, a
vague report from "a man in the pub" that another man was carrying a
sawn-off shotgun?
>The police do treat the public and officers who are involved in crime,
>either as the victim or offender, the same. There is often greater impetus
>to get officers stuck on than the public, since no one cares if the odd
>public citizen gets away with a borderline case before court, but everyone
>seems to go potty when the same thing happens to officers.
>
The objection is that allegations against police officers are less
likely to be put before a court. When evidence gathered by the police
is found insufficient to support a conviction (so the case gets dropped)
there is bound to be a suspicion that the investigators didn't do a very
good job.
--
Mike
Mike
<mi...@fensoft.co.uk> writes
>In article <UytS9.14$vq3....@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net>, Andy Long
><dont....@all.thankyou> writes
>>
>>said that verdict was returned.
>
>*If* the verdict on Mr Stanley was "unlawful killing" (I'll try to check
>this) and given that the killers are known, they should be charged.
>
Ashley in google but the links to -
http://inquest.gn.apc.org/press/stanley_verdict.html
http://inquest.gn.apc.org/press/ashley_noinquestPR.html
don't seem to work.
From what I have been able to see, it seems I was wrong about Harry
Stanley: the jury returned an open verdict after the coroner told them
they couldn't return "unlawful killing". I can't seem to find any
details of an inquest into the death of James Ashley - was there one?
Christopher Alder was found to have been unlawfully killed so I may have
been thinking about that case.
There are some detail of these and other deaths here -
http://www.copwatcher.freeserve.co.uk/custodydeaths/
--
Mike
Alan
I've just launched it from the post and it's gone straight in.
For those who can't get it----------------->
Introduction
INQUEST is working with Mr Stanley's widow and son and their lawyers.
We have major concerns about the number of fatal shootings by police
and the procedures for holding the police to account which serve
neither the public interest nor the families of the deceased. A
disturbing number of these deaths could and should have been avoided.
INQUEST believes that the seriousness of this case warrants a fully
independent public inquiry into the death and the wider issues it
raises. INQUEST has raised its concerns about the case with Government
Ministers, MPs and human rights organisations.
Case summary
Harry Stanley was a 46-year-old Scottish painter and decorator and
father of three children. He was recovering from a successful cancer
operation. On 22nd September 1999 he left his home in Hackney telling
his wife he was going to visit a friend. He wanted to collect a table
leg from one of his brothers who had fixed it after it had been
damaged earlier in the year. On his return home he visited a public
house. Another customer, mistaking Mr Stanley's accent for Irish
rather than Scottish and noticing that he was carrying something long
in a bag, telephoned the police to say that a man with an Irish accent
was leaving the pub with a sawn-off shot gun in a plastic bag.
Within a few minutes an armed response unit from the Metropolitan
Police service specialist firearms unit SO 19 arrived in the area.
According to a Metropolitan police statement two officers approached
Mr Stanley from behind. It is claimed that they shouted, "Stop, armed
police!" Mr Stanley had no reason to imagine that the police wanted
him or that they were indeed police officers and did not stop at that
command. The police say that they shouted again, to which Mr Stanley
responded by turning around. The police officers shot him dead, with
one shot hitting him in his head, the other hitting him in his left
hand. In the bag was the repaired two-foot table leg, which he had
collected from his brother. Even had Mr Stanley presented an immediate
risk the police did not act properly by approaching him from behind,
thereby placing themselves in an open space where had he really been
holding a firearm they put themselves at risk.
Even though Mr Stanley had clear identification and contact details on
him, including his passport, his bankbook and his birth certificate,
and the shooting took place only one hundred yards from his home, his
widow was not informed about his death for more than eighteen hours
after his death. His body was left lying uncovered in the street for
several hours and blood on the ground from his injuries was not
cleaned up. The failure to inform the family of his death meant that
the family was unable to instruct their own legal and medical
representatives to be present when the first post mortem took place on
the 23rd September, the morning after the shooting. Once located by
the police the family was given no information from the police about
where they could go for advice and support. An initial offer by the
police to pay for the funeral expenses was withdrawn. They have also
received no letter of condolence from the Metropolitan Police. The
officers involved have not been suspended but have been removed from
firearm duties.
The death was voluntarily referred by the Metropolitan Police to the
Police Complaints Authority for them to supervise an investigation
into the death. They appointed neighbouring Surrey Constabulary to
conduct the investigation. INQUEST monitoring of police shootings
highlighted the fact that Surrey Police were themselves being
investigated over the fatal shooting of Derek Bateman in Dorking in
Surrey in July 1999; the PCA investigation into the force resulted in
a Chief Inspector facing a misconduct hearing in late 2000. A sergeant
will also receive "operational advice" in regard to the handling of
the incident. Following a formal complaint from the family concerning
the delay in informing them about Mr Stanley's death, Surrey Police
are now in turn being investigated by Suffolk Police about their
conduct in the first 18 hours after his death.
The wider concerns
Increase in number of fatal shootings by police
Twenty-five people have been shot dead by police officers since 1990 ,
the majority of them subsequently found to be unarmed or armed with a
replica gun. Prosecutions are rare, having occurred in only two of
these cases. In the case of David Ewin, a man shot dead in his car in
South London in February 1995, the officer charged with manslaughter
was acquitted at the second trial, the first trial jury failing to
reach a verdict. The trial of officers charged with the manslaughter
of unarmed man James Ashley shot dead at his home by Sussex police
January 1998 is expected to take place in 2001, over three years after
his death.
The investigation
All investigations into fatal shootings by police are carried out by
police officers under the supervision of the Police Complaints
Authority. We can have no confidence in a system of investigation that
allows the police to investigate the police - in this case where
Surrey themselves have been investigated for a fatal shooting should
have caused the Police Complaints Authority to consider an alternative
appointment. The record of such investigations is a sorry catalogue of
cosy relations between forces, resulting in evasion, delay and
protection of those responsible. It does nothing to inspire confidence
in the family or local community. Many people are reluctant to
co-operate with a police investigation because of their mistrust of
the police. At a meeting of the Hackney Police Consultative Group
following the shooting of Mr. Stanley, local people complained about
intimidatory behaviour by Surrey police officers towards young people
who were being pressurised to sign statements saying that they had not
heard or seen anything in relation to his death.
The Stanley family has also complained about their treatment by the
investigating police officers and the conduct of the appointed family
liaison officer. They felt that the police were interrogating family
members and that the family and Harry Stanley himself were being
investigated in an attempt to deflect attention away from police
conduct. This is a pattern that INQUEST has seen repeated time and
again. At this sensitive time the police even suggested that Harry
Stanley could have been trying to 'commit suicide by police shooting'.
The post mortem
Rule 7 of the Coroners Rules 1984 require that the Coroner notify in
advance the relatives of a deceased person of a post mortem
examination and that they can have a representative in attendance.
This allows families, particularly in cases of suspicious death, to
arrange for a legally qualified person or pathologist to attend the
post mortem on their behalf. This can avoid the need for multiple post
mortems, ensure early release of the body for burial and provide
important evidence. INQUEST frequently hears evidence from families
who, like the Stanleys, have not been informed of their rights to be
represented and have found out that post mortems have already taken
place.
Treatment of families
We remain deeply concerned at the lack of respect and dignity shown to
Mr Stanley's body after he was shot. He remained lying uncovered in
the street for several hours. Blood at the scene was not cleared up,
causing considerable distress to family and friends, including his
young grandchild. Delay in conducting the investigation has also
exacerbated their distress. In common with many families following
deaths in police custody, Mr Stanley's family was given no information
by the police about the legal process that would follow or where to go
for help and support.
Disclosure
The authority to disclose information rests with the police force
under investigation. Neither the external force nor the Police
Complaints Authority has the power to disclose evidence. New Home
Office guidance on disclosure of information prior to any inquest is a
welcome development but continues to meet resistance from the
Metropolitan Police. The Stanley family will still not see the final
report of the Investigating Officer whose report is covered by Public
Interest Immunity. We call upon the Metropolitan Police Commissioner,
in the public interest, to release the full report of the
investigation into the death of Harry Stanley by Surrey Police and to
ensure full pre-inquest disclosure to the family of the criminal
investigation papers.
Crown Prosecution Service
When the police investigation was completed the papers were passed to
the Crown Prosecution Service for a decision as to whether criminal
charges should be brought against the officers involved. On 4th
December 2000 the CPS announced that no officer was to face criminal
charges over this death. It said it has made its decision on the basis
that the officers "honestly" believed that they were at risk. The CPS
said that it had taken account of witnesses and the opinions of
medical and forensic experts.
The family is considering whether to challenge the CPS decision that
says that manslaughter charges can not be brought because even if the
officers had deployed using different tactics the final result was
bound to be the same. The CPS appears to suggest that if police
officers believe that a person is armed they will inevitably have to
end up shooting that person. This suggestion is absurd and if it were
true would be extremely frightening for us as members of the public.
This unbelievable decision follows a pattern of cases where police
officers whose conduct has led to death have not been subjected to
proper scrutiny and shows that the rule of law does not apply to
police officers. How can we accept that the shooting dead of an
unarmed man does not result in a criminal trial where a jury decides
whether or not the actions were unlawful? The Human Rights Act should
lead to a greater protection of people's rights, particularly the
right to life. These unaccounted for police killings show that the
current system for investigating deaths in custody is merely a paper
exercise and unworthy of any public confidence.
Inquests
It is to the inquest that the family must turn to try and establish
the truth about what happened to their loved one in the absence of a
prosecution. Despite recommendations of the Home Affairs Select
Committee and the Lawrence Inquiry, public funding is still not
routinely available for families to be represented at inquests, but
only in 'exceptional cases'. Unlimited public funds remain available
for the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to be represented and the
Police Federation meets the individual officers' legal costs. The
shooting of Harry Stanley raises many issues of important public
interest and concern, and public funding must be made available to
ensure that his family have access to experienced legal representation
at any inquest that may take place in the absence of criminal
proceedings.
The inquest has a very narrow remit, and is primarily concerned with
establishing the medical cause of death. Lawyers representing families
frequently complain that key witnesses have not been called to give
evidence, that Coroners have restricted questioning as to whether
police guidelines have been followed, and limit the verdicts available
for juries to return. At the conclusion of the inquest into the death
of Michael Fitzgerald, shot by Bedfordshire Police in February 1998,
the Coroner directed the jury that they could only consider a verdict
of Lawful Killing despite evidence heard about the incompetent
planning and control of the firearms operation. At the conclusion of
the inquest in February 2000 into the shooting of Diarmuid O'Neill,
the Coroner issued a public statement complaining that the police had
been subjected to three weeks of criticism.
Right of Silence
An inquest also allows police officers to refuse to answer any
question that might incriminate them. Rule 22 of the Coroners Rules
provides that any witness must be advised that they are not obliged to
answer any questions that may incriminate them. This means they do not
have to answer any question that goes to the heart of what happened.
They can answer if they wish to but our experience is that police
officers do not answer questions when given the option of remaining
silent. In the recent inquests into the restraint-related deaths of
Glen Howard and Christopher Alder police officers exercised the same
right of silence and therefore did not give a full account of what
happened.
Police use of lethal force must be subjected to thorough public
scrutiny through an open, transparent and above all fair inquiry. The
inquest is not an adequate forum for the examination of these cases.
The European Court of Human Rights has said that where an individual
dies in suspicious circumstances Article 13 requires "a thorough and
effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and
punishment of those responsible and including effective access for the
relatives to the investigatory procedure".
Anonymity at inquests
Recent inquests into fatal shootings by police (Michael Fitzgerald,
[November 1998], Diarmuid O'Neill [Feb 2000]) have seen Coroners
granting police officers anonymity at the inquest. In a free and
democratic society police officers must be held publicly accountable
for the taking of someone's life. The granting of anonymity prejudices
the fundamental objective of getting to the truth. If a witness is
permitted to remain anonymous they will feel insulated from effective
criticism and shielded from embarrassment and disgrace.
Police training in use of firearms
Mr Stanley was shot dead while walking home when he posed no threat
and was unarmed. It is difficult to imagine how in the circumstances
of Harry Stanley's death the officers could have believed that their
lives were in immediate danger. This case raises particular public
concern because Mr Stanley was doing nothing out of the ordinary and
any member of the public with a Scottish or Irish accent could have
met the same fate.
A disturbing number of cases INQUEST has been involved involve
shootings of people subsequently found to be unarmed. Questions have
been raised at inquests into these deaths about the quality of police
training in the use of firearms and the planning and control of such
operations. One of the most important documents referred to during
inquests into police shootings is the ACPO Manual, the guidelines on
the use of firearms first issued by the Association of Chief Police
Officers in 1997 and due for revision in the new year.
They are believed to include the following minimum standards:
Firearms should only be used when there is reason to believe that a
police officer may have to face a person who is armed or so dangerous
that restraint is impossible without firearms;
Only reasonable force should be used;
A proper briefing should be given to armed police before they set off
by an officer of appropriate seniority;
Firearms should only be used when conventional methods have been tried
and failed;
Only properly trained officers should bear arms.
The ACPO guidelines are subject to Public Interest Immunity and
therefore protected from public scrutiny.
Lobbying for action
INQUEST briefed Brian Sedgemore MP (Hackney South and Shoreditch) on
the case and the wider issues it raises. He met Mr Stanley's family,
their lawyer and INQUEST and held a recent Parliamentary adjournment
debate on the case where he concluded that:
“From what I know of the case, my considered opinion as a barrister is
that a jury should be asked to decide on the evidence whether the two
police officers are innocent or guilty of manslaughter or, worse,
murder.”
Following inquests where questions have been raised about police
procedures it is difficult to establish what if any lessons are learnt
and action taken. Many of these deaths could and should have been
avoided. A number of cases have been referred to the European Court of
Human Rights on the basis that the lethal use of force violated the
individuals' right to life. INQUEST has reported its concerns about
the death of Harry Stanley to the United Nations Rapporteur on
Extrajudical, Summary or Arbitrary Executions. Amnesty International
has also taken up the case.
Deborah Coles
Co-Director
June 2000; updated December 2000
© INQUEST 2000 Please credit INQUEST when using this material for
purposes of quotation or reproduction
Alan
>In article <KK1olCAe...@fenlandsoftware.demon.co.uk>, Mike
><mi...@fensoft.co.uk> writes
>>In article <UytS9.14$vq3....@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net>, Andy Long
>><dont....@all.thankyou> writes
>>>
>>>The coroner may well instruct the jury, much like a judge. I thought someone
>>>said that verdict was returned.
>>
>>*If* the verdict on Mr Stanley was "unlawful killing" (I'll try to check
>>this) and given that the killers are known, they should be charged.
>>
>I've tried finding the inquest verdicts for both Harry Stanley and James
>Ashley in google but the links to -
>
>http://inquest.gn.apc.org/press/stanley_verdict.html
here is the page
>21 June 2002
>
>Jury reject "Lawful Killing" verdict at inquest into police shooting of unarmed man.
>
>After HM Coroner for Inner North London Dr Stephen Chan refused to allow the jury at the inquest into the shooting by Metropolitan Police officers of Harry Stanley to consider Unlawful Killing as a verdict, they returned instead a unanimous "Open" verdict rather the only alternative left to them of "Lawful Killing".
>
>Deborah Coles, Co-director of INQUEST, who has been working with the Stanley family and their legal team, said:
>
>
>"In rejecting a verdict of Lawful Killing, the jury have clearly also rejected the evidence of the two police officers who shot Harry that they acted in self-defence. The Coroner gave a biased and one-sided summing up which ignored crucial forensic evidence that Harry Stanley was shot from behind. The failure of the Coroner to give the jury the opportunity to decide if this was an Unlawful Killing is a gross error of law, which the Stanley family and their lawyers will be taking to Judicial Review.
>
>
>The procedures which follow a death in custody, from the police investigation to an inquest, has failed yet another family. This inquest and the biased and insensitive conduct of the Coroner once again brings the whole Inquest system in relation to deaths in custody into disrepute. We have always believed that this case should have been tried before a jury in a criminal court. Where police officers kill members of the public they must be held to account openly and transparently. The rule of law must be seen to apply equally to all citizens, including those in police uniform."
>
>Irene Stanley, widow of Harry Stanley, said:
>
>
>"I came here for justice having waited 2 ½ years for this inquest - to me it was unlawful killing as my husband was an unarmed man. I am going to carry on fighting for justice for Harry. Despite the Coroner, the jury, who were members of the public and ordinary people, did not decide that the two officers who shot Harry killed him lawfully."
>
>Note to Editors:
>
>This is only the second occasion on which an "Open" verdict has been returned at an inquest into a police shooting, the same verdict having been returned at the inquest into the shooting by Northumbria Police of James Brady in Newcastle in 1995.
>http://inquest.gn.apc.org/press/ashley_noinquestPR.html
And the next
PRESS RELEASE
6 AUGUST 2001
JAMES ASHLEY SHOOTING
GOVERNMENT REFUSE AN INQUEST AND PUBLIC INQUIRY
Deborah Coles, co-director of INQUEST, the organisation concerned with
deaths in custody and their investigation, said:
"The failure to hold an inquest or a public inquiry into this death
makes a mockery of the Government's purported commitment to human
rights. In order to protect the most fundamental of all human rights -
the right to life - police use of lethal force must be subjected to
thorough public scrutiny through an open, transparent and above all
fair inquiry. This is essential so that matters of important public
interest are not swept under the carpet and action is taken by the
State to prevent the recurrence of such killings.
Public confidence in the police can only be maintained when the police
are seen to be subject to the rule of law. The family of James Ashley
has been utterly failed. INQUEST supports the Ashley family's call for
an independent judicial inquiry into the shooting to ensure proper
public scrutiny of those responsible at an individual and corporate
level and believe that this is the only appropriate Government
response to the widespread disquiet surrounding this case.
This shocking state of affairs has once again exposed fundamental
problems in the way the state deals with deaths at the hands of the
police. The Government can no longer ignore the need for a fully
independent public inquiry into the whole investigation process that
follows such deaths."
Pauline Ashley, sister of the deceased, said:
"All we have wanted is to find out the truth about what exactly
happened on that night. Wherever we go we are hitting a brick wall. We
will continue our fight until we get some answers."
Notes for Editors:
In February 2001, the trial at the Old Bailey of the police officer
that shot dead James Ashley in Hastings in January 1998 was halted by
the presiding judge. At a separate trial at Wolverhampton Crown Court
in the same month, the officers who planned the raid were acquitted
when the CPS offered no evidence. Two of the officers involved were
then promoted. Sussex Chief Constable Paul Whitehouse resigned in
June.
In July the Ashley family met Rt. Hon John Denham MP to request that
the Government hold a public inquiry and for full disclosure of the
police inquiries into the shooting. One of the reasons cited for the
decision to turn down this request was the holding of the inquest. The
coroner has since written to the family saying that the inquest will
not be re-opened.
(Inquest allow reproduction of their pages as long as the attributions
are kept. Tha is if you want to quote them)
>
>don't seem to work.
>
>From what I have been able to see, it seems I was wrong about Harry
>Stanley: the jury returned an open verdict after the coroner told them
>they couldn't return "unlawful killing". I can't seem to find any
>details of an inquest into the death of James Ashley - was there one?
>
>Christopher Alder was found to have been unlawfully killed so I may have
>been thinking about that case.
>
>There are some detail of these and other deaths here -
>http://www.copwatcher.freeserve.co.uk/custodydeaths/
When you read that page in conjunction with the others you might start
to think there just may be a conspiracy between the CPS and the
police.
Mike
<m...@privacy.net> writes
>On Wed, 8 Jan 2003 14:54:56 +0000, Mike <mi...@fensoft.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I've tried finding the inquest verdicts for both Harry Stanley and James
>>Ashley in google but the links to -
>>
>>http://inquest.gn.apc.org/press/stanley_verdict.html
>
>
>>http://inquest.gn.apc.org/press/ashley_noinquestPR.html
>
[SNIP - Web page contents]
>>
>>There are some detail of these and other deaths here -
>>http://www.copwatcher.freeserve.co.uk/custodydeaths/
>
>When you read that page in conjunction with the others you might start
>to think there just may be a conspiracy between the CPS and the
>police.
>
tell whether there is a conspiracy between them or just that the police
don't give the CPS enough evidence to prosecute the police.
--
Mike
Mike
<m...@privacy.net> writes
>On Wed, 8 Jan 2003 11:54:35 +0000, Mike <mi...@fensoft.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <t91l1vsqcmpimfqs3...@4ax.com>, Alan
>><m...@privacy.net> writes
>>>>
>>>I have posted all the reports available on line over the years. Here
>>>is a site that gives one version.
>>>http://inquest.gn.apc.org/briefings/stanley.html
>>>
>>That link doesn't seem to work.
>
>I've just launched it from the post and it's gone straight in.
>
>For those who can't get it----------------->
>
Thanks for that, Alan. It makes interesting reading.
--
Mike
Andy Long
> On Tue, 7 Jan 2003 05:34:44 -0000, "Andy Long"
> <dont....@all.thankyou> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Mike" <mi...@fensoft.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:zDn2H6AV...@fenlandsoftware.demon.co.uk...
> >> In article <JR4S9.657$H94.2...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>, Andy
> >> Long <dont....@all.thankyou> writes
> >> >
> >> >"Alan" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:s54h1v0hn4hdnktqs...@4ax.com...
>
> Maybe the two policemen just walked up behind him and murdered him.
> Seems most likely given what we know of the case.
Given what you believe.
snip
>
> Since there was never an independent investigation we will never know.
> The suspicion remains that two police officers committed a heinous
> crime and walked away
There are hundreds of people about who I have suspicions, I get on with my
life despite that and don't keep harping back to them.
snip
Andy Long
"Cynic" <cy...@none.none> wrote in message
> On Tue, 7 Jan 2003 06:13:48 -0000, "Andy Long"
> <dont....@all.thankyou> wrote:
>
> >> What do you imagine your instinctive reaction would be if you - being
> >> perfectly innocent and having no cause to believe you were a suspect -
> >> heard such a shout whilst walking home? Would you *really* assume the
> >> shout was directed at yourself and immediately lie on the pavement, or
> >> is there perhaps a good chance that you would *first* look toward the
> >> source of the shout to evaluate the situation?
>
> >If someone were to shout "Armed Police Stand Still", would I run, turn
> >around or stand still? I'd be the one standing still.
>
> I'd take a bet on that. I bet you that if you were to hear such a
> shout from a distance *completely unexpectedly* in an otherwise quiet
> street, your first *instinctive* reaction would be to turn toward the
> source of the shout. You would start to turn before the meaning of
> the words had sunk in. It is an automatic response. Try it on
> someone you know completely out of the blue. A louder or closer sound
> causes an instinctive cringing away.
If, if, if. The officers say that not only did he turn around he raised what
they believed to be the shotgun and so shot him.
I have seen people stop when such a thing is shouted, there is usually lots
more said than can be recalled, people get scared and they may do things
that put them at risk.
> Tell me this: If you were chasing a burglar on foot, and the
> burglar's mate just behind you were to shout "Armed police, stand
> still," how long would you remain in a statue-like position?
Actually not stopping wont get you shot, its the turning and raising stuff
that might.
Andy Long
"Cynic" <cy...@none.none> wrote in message
> On Tue, 7 Jan 2003 05:54:47 -0000, "Andy Long"
> <dont....@all.thankyou> wrote:
>
> >That would a nice transparent way of doing things, but it would then be
> >different to the all the other cases are brought to court and the
screening
> >that goes on with them.
>
> Huh? Cite a single case where a completely innocent person was
> deliberately killed by a member of the public that did *not* result in
> a court case.
Why do I need to do that? The screening process is about whether there is a
reasonable chance of a prosecution suceeding, nothing more.
snip
Andy Long
"PeteM" <Pe...@arcadia.net> wrote in message
news:26BZfKAg...@arcadia.net...
No I don't believe it for a moment, just like I dont believe the line above
mine.
>
> Must you perform these contortions to try and defend what everybody
> knows was indefensible? Can't you just admit that they fucked up
> royally? You can still maintain that they shouldn't be prosecuted
> (although IMV you'd be wrong) but at least that position would not be as
> preposterous as the one you are defending. Nobody else but a police
> officer would even dream of trying to defend it.
Like I said elsewhere the stuff that was posted was unsupported oneliners
and I felt the need to air some of the bigot's postings in a bit more
detail.
I posted links to information which doesnt leave the cops smelling of rose,
which is critical and says they did screw up.
A man is dead that need not be, it doesnt make it murder, it doesnt make it
even the fault of any individual, but pepole will say it does, and I
disagree.
Andy Long
>
> "Andy Long" <dont....@all.thankyou> wrote in message
> news:3mtS9.12$vq3....@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net...
> >
> > "simon" <si...@unikey.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:3e18ff16$1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> > >
> > > "Andy Long" <dont....@all.thankyou> wrote in message
> > > news:nX4S9.660$H94.2...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
> snip
>
> > Clearly not. You are neither empowered to carry weapons for that purpose
> nor
> > would you be expected to act directly on such information.
>
> I'm not but I know people who do have shotgun licenses as to being
empowered
Im not sure what you mean, some sees an armed bloke outside threatening
people so goes and gets his legally held shotgun and challenges them?
Maybe that would, never heard of it happening.
>
> > It is a little
> > hard for you to say that you acted in self defence having taken it upon
> > yourself to approach someone you believed to be armed and then had to
> shoot
> > him.
>
> Not my self defense others
Its possible, i'd have to look into on the computer.