I'm sure that they will be found' not guilty'.After all they are policemen.
christo...@yahoo.com
Shot dead: Harry Stanley
Two Metropolitan Police officers have been arrested on suspicion of
murder in connection with the death of a painter and decorator killed
by police marksmen.
Harry Stanley, 46, from Hackney, east London, was shot in the head and
hand on September 22, 1999 after a table leg he was carrying in a bag
was mistaken for a gun.
The two officers have been arrested on suspicion of murder, gross
negligence, manslaughter and conspiracy to pervert the course of
justice by Surrey Police officers.
They have been released on bail to return to a Surrey Police station on
June 16, pending further inquiries.
bel...@hotmail.com
female) would NOT be bailed,AND would be named
Dave Baker
<christo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1117718457.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Astonishingly enough, according to AOL news this appears to be true. I too
hold out little hope of a conviction but it will be interesting to see the
outcome.
Cynic
>Any civilian charged with such crimes(assuming that they were not
>female) would NOT be bailed,AND would be named
They would be named, yes. There have however been a few cases where
murder suspects have been released on bail. The main risk is usually
that the suspect would flee the country if bailed. If the police do
not believe that to be a major risk, they will and do bail.
In this case I would suspect that the policemen are quite genuinely
very low risk in that regard.
--
Cynic
Cynic
>Two Police Held On Suspicion of Murder
>
>
>
>Shot dead: Harry Stanley
>
>
>Two Metropolitan Police officers have been arrested on suspicion of
>murder in connection with the death of a painter and decorator killed
>by police marksmen.
This is excellent news. It is exactly what I and others have been
calling for since HS was killed.
Does anyone have any idea what role the arrested men played in the
death? If these are the police marksmen, IMO the prosecution will not
succeed, and in any case the wrong people are being blamed - which
makes me suspect a token scapegoat.
Hopefully the arrested policemen are higher up the chain than those
who pulled the trigger.
OTOH we should at least get to hear *all* the relevant facts, and
maybe that will lead to an investigation into where I believe the true
culpability lay - the people who made the decisions on that day rather
than the people who carried out the assigned tasks.
--
Cynic
Rob
||| The two officers have been arrested on suspicion of murder, gross
||| negligence, manslaughter and conspiracy to pervert the course of
||| justice by Surrey Police officers.
|||
||| They have been released on bail to return to a Surrey Police
||| station on June 16, pending further inquiries.
|||
||
|| Astonishingly enough, according to AOL news this appears to be true.
|| I too hold out little hope of a conviction but it will be
|| interesting to see the outcome.
I wouldn't hope for a murder conviction because I don't think it was murder,
manslaughter at most. However I am pleased that at last their actions will
be subject to proper public scrutiny.
--
Rob
DB.
> On 2 Jun 2005 06:26:33 -0700, bel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> Any civilian charged with such crimes(assuming that they were not
>> female) would NOT be bailed,AND would be named
>
> They would be named, yes. There have however been a few cases where
> murder suspects have been released on bail. The main risk is usually
> that the suspect would flee the country if bailed. If the police do
> not believe that to be a major risk, they will and do bail.
>
Yes, it seems strange to see Sion Jenkins (who is currently on trial for
Billie-Jo's murder) walking into the Old Bailey each morning rather than
being driven there in a police van.
--
DB.
Dave Baker
Rob <rsvptorob-u...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d7n455$mn7$1...@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
I agree that it wasn't murder and I'm surprised they (if it is in fact the
two shooters who have been arrested) have been charged with that. I also see
little chance of police officers acting in the course of their duties being
convicted of manslaughter however idiotic their approach to the situation
was. Gross negligence seems fair enough and I'd like to see a proper
examination of what I believe to be their lies about the way the situation
unfolded and them shooting HS only after he 'took up a firing stance
directly facing them'.
Why though has it taken so long to get to this stage and especially after a
judge quashed the unlawful killing verdict? Presumably something has occured
to spark this off again but I don't know what.
I also hope this leads to far better training for armed police in how to
respond to threat situations. My feeling is that in this country we are
still relatively new to armed policing and that to some extent it attracts a
cowboy element who want the prestige and kudos of carrying a weapon. In
America it's a standard situation and clearly they have far more experience
of training and threat situations. Maybe we should be asking specialists
from over there to look into our police 'gun culture' and see if things
could not be done better.
--
Dave Baker - Puma Race Engines (www.pumaracing.co.uk)
Rob
He'll not be walking to court for his appeal though, assuming this case goes
the way similar recent high profile cases have gone, ie conviction without
any shred of actual evidence of guilt.
--
Rob
Mike
> I wouldn't hope for a murder conviction because I don't think it was murder,
> manslaughter at most.
Discharging a firearm at a person indicates an intent to kill or, at least,
cause that person serious harm. If the person dies as a result, it meets
the criteria for murder AIUI, unless the killing was justified. If it were,
then no offence has been committed - not even manslaughter.
> However I am pleased that at last their actions will
> be subject to proper public scrutiny.
>
About time too.
--
Mike
Mr X
<Pumar...@aol.com> writes
>Why though has it taken so long to get to this stage and especially after a
>judge quashed the unlawful killing verdict? Presumably something has occured
>to spark this off again but I don't know what.
The clue is here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4603643.stm
"The force (Surrey Police) said new forensic evidence had come to light"
--
Mr X
Mr X
<rsvptorob-u...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
Assuming the arrests lead to charges and the charges lead to a trial.
I suppose it is possible the CPS will refuse to charge on the basis of
"not in the public interest". It does happen from time to time.
--
Mr X
Just Another Legal Fan
It most certainly WAS murder. There is also the little matter of
attempting to pervert the course of justice.
BTW the two WERE named:-
Inspector NEIL SHARMAN and PC KEVIN FAGAN
Rob
||| I wouldn't hope for a murder conviction because I don't think it
||| was murder, manslaughter at most. However I am pleased that at last
||| their actions will be subject to proper public scrutiny.
||
|| Assuming the arrests lead to charges and the charges lead to a trial.
||
|| I suppose it is possible the CPS will refuse to charge on the basis
|| of "not in the public interest". It does happen from time to time.
Ah yes I missed the bit out them not having been charged yet, so we may not
get that scrutiny after all.
--
Rob
Michael Swift
>after a judge quashed the unlawful killing verdict? Presumably something
>has occured to spark this off again but I don't know what.
The cynical side of me wonders if recent high profile events, 160 mph
joyrides, missing black boxes, drunken top cops plus many more
regrettable incidents have anything to do with it, the words public,
relations and scapegoat spring readily to mind.
Mike
--
Michael Swift We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners.
Kirkheaton We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians.
Yorkshire Halvard Lange
Cynic
<Pumaracing(NoEmails)@aol.com> wrote:
>I agree that it wasn't murder and I'm surprised they (if it is in fact the
>two shooters who have been arrested) have been charged with that.
I cannot see how you came to that opinion. The policemen fully
intended to kill Harry Stanley. *If* they had no lawful excuse (e.g.
self defence), then that very obviously makes it murder. If OTOH they
had a lawful reason, then it makes it legal. On that particular
charge there is no halfway - it's either murder or its nothing. The
nature of the incident means that either no force was justified or
deadly force was justified.
There is also a case to be made that *even if* the killing itself had
lawful excuse, then that reason only occured due to the police acting
negligently in getting into such a situation in the first place.
Which would be a completely different crime and not necessarily
carried out by the two who pulled the trigger.
And then we come to the question of whether the policemen lied about
the circumstances of the shooting. If they did, it does not mean that
they are guilty of murder, though it could be evidence of that
possibility. The lies could amount to PCJ, though ISTM that will be
dependant upon them being found guilty on another charge.
--
Cynic
Dave Baker
Just Another Legal Fan <dcj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1117724583.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >I agree that it wasn't murder
>
> It most certainly WAS murder.
It would only be murder if they had wantonly set out to kill HS regardless
of his actions towards them or after his submission and relinquishing of the
'weapon' he was carrying. Unless some startling new evidence has come to
light indicating this then of course it isn't murder. We already have
independant witness testimony that goes some way towards confirming what
happened and that HS was still carrying the table leg when he was shot so I
see little possibility of a major reversal of these findings.
The major element in doubt is whether HS made any sort of threatening move
towards the plods and whether he ever got to the position of facing them or
whether they just shouted a warning and then shot him immediately from
slightly towards the rear of sideways on as indicated by the ballistics
evidence.
I think an intelligent person can at least have a stab at what really went
down that night. The two plods were pumped to the hilt with adrenalin
thinking they were chasing an armed felon - maybe even an IRA terrorist
given the details of the 999 call. It was probably their first armed
response situation but it would be nice to know for sure. They found the
man, leapt to the conclusion that the table leg was a weapon, rushed into
the scene gung ho without taking cover, one panicked and fired a shot and
this automatically triggered the other to fire too as a knee jerk reaction.
They then, in the ample time given to them to agree their story, concocted a
series of fabrications about how HS had threatened them and how their
reaction was proper and considered in the light of this 'threat'. If they
had just fessed up to a terrible error of judgement in the first place maybe
this would all have been settled long ago.
What also sticks in the craw greatly is the threat by other armed police to
resign if these two are charged, apparently regardless of the rights and
wrongs of their actions. It sends a clear message that police are happy to
take the kudos and extra pay that goes with being armed but aren't prepared
to take on board the extra responsibility this entails and the extreme
serious of being put into situations where you might have to take another
person's life.
It's bad enough that in the majority of situations all police are pretty
much above the law without us having armed police giving the clear message
that they want to be above it too regardless of how badly they screw up a
threat situation. If they can't stand the heat then get out of the kitchen
and stick to unarmed duty. All those who threatened to resign should be
sacked IMO or at least taken off armed duty.
Richard Miller
<spam...@fensoft.co.uk> writes
>Discharging a firearm at a person indicates an intent to kill or, at
>least, cause that person serious harm. If the person dies as a result,
>it meets the criteria for murder AIUI, unless the killing was
>justified. If it were, then no offence has been committed - not even
>manslaughter.
Yep - the Lee Clegg case made that clear.
--
Richard Miller
AlanG
>Any civilian charged with such crimes(assuming that they were not
>female) would NOT be bailed,AND would be named
They would very likely be bailed if they could show they were unlikely
to abscond. The two officers have been named on numerous occasions and
are named in the full report. But for you " Neil Sharman and Pc Kevin
Fagan".
Cynic
Though it would be very bad publicity if it does not go to trial now.
I also cannot see the CPS pulling the "not in the public interest"
trick over a murder charge.
Given that a coroner's jury decided the death was unlawful, but their
decision was overturned by a judge, a murder charge already makes the
judge's decision look pretty shakey, and ISTM that a conviction would
make it clear that the jury's assessment was right and the judge's
assessment was wrong.
--
Cynic
AlanG
<Pumaracing(NoEmails)@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Rob <rsvptorob-u...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:d7n455$mn7$1...@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>> Dave Baker wrote:
>> ||| The two officers have been arrested on suspicion of murder, gross
>> ||| negligence, manslaughter and conspiracy to pervert the course of
>> ||| justice by Surrey Police officers.
>> |||
>> ||| They have been released on bail to return to a Surrey Police
>> ||| station on June 16, pending further inquiries.
>> |||
>> ||
>> || Astonishingly enough, according to AOL news this appears to be true.
>> || I too hold out little hope of a conviction but it will be
>> || interesting to see the outcome.
>>
>I also hope this leads to far better training for armed police in how to
>respond to threat situations. My feeling is that in this country we are
>still relatively new to armed policing and that to some extent it attracts a
>cowboy element who want the prestige and kudos of carrying a weapon. In
>America it's a standard situation and clearly they have far more experience
>of training and threat situations. Maybe we should be asking specialists
>from over there to look into our police 'gun culture' and see if things
>could not be done better.
Like this you mean
http://www.refuseandresist.org/resist_this/020699nypdkill.html
Waco is another good example
Dave Baker
Cynic <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:kd9u915s2i7hqfhr9...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 15:37:26 +0100, "Dave Baker"
> <Pumaracing(NoEmails)@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> >I agree that it wasn't murder and I'm surprised they (if it is in fact
the
> >two shooters who have been arrested) have been charged with that.
>
> I cannot see how you came to that opinion. The policemen fully
> intended to kill Harry Stanley. *If* they had no lawful excuse (e.g.
> self defence), then that very obviously makes it murder. If OTOH they
> had a lawful reason, then it makes it legal. On that particular
> charge there is no halfway - it's either murder or its nothing. The
> nature of the incident means that either no force was justified or
> deadly force was justified.
Then we must disagree. Such situations are never so black and white that the
only two options open are no force or lethal force. I recall an American
program where a distressed man was sitting on a chair in a park with a
handgun but not immediately threatening anyone else. However he was refusing
to drop the weapon or lie down. A police marksman shot the gun out of his
hand at long range and other officers then managed to subdue him without
harming him further. In another incident police used a water cannon on a man
armed with a Samurai sword and were then able to handcuff him.
At best the two police can only have had a suspicion that HS was armed with
a gun. Their options ranged from trying to disable him in case it was a gun,
shooting to kill, calling for backup, continuing to try to get him to
surrender, following him until a more clear threat to themselves or others
presented itself.
What actually happened was they panicked. I don't see this makes it murder
but I also don't see how it makes it legal. Negligent homicide springs to
mind but maybe that is not a charge open to us in the UK.
Flexibility of response is crucial to the correct resolution of such
situations and your opinion that only no force or lethal force are justified
would make it almost impossible to handle most of them correctly.
Cynic
<Pumaracing(NoEmails)@aol.com> wrote:
>It would only be murder if they had wantonly set out to kill HS regardless
>of his actions towards them or after his submission and relinquishing of the
>'weapon' he was carrying.
If you "bottle" someone in a bar brawl and they die, do you think the
prosecution have to prove that you wantonly set out to the pub with
the intention of killing someone before you could be convicted of
murder?
You have subscribed to the legal groups for long enough that you ought
to know the legal definition of murder under UK law by this time. UK
law does not require any premeditation whatsoever. It does not even
require an intent to kill, only an intent to cause serious injury. An
intent that could have been formed the instant before the fatal act.
--
Cynic
Mr X
<rsvptorob-u...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
Yes, so there are a few more hurdles to go yet, and the authorities have
been very determined over a long period of time to keep this all out of
the courts so I think they may still have a few tricks up their sleeves.
--
Mr X
Dave Baker
AlanG <inv...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:h8bu91lqq0jlhgtjs...@4ax.com...
Yes of course they get it wrong too and Waco was an abomination against
justice but American police deal with many thousands, maybe millions, of
armed incidents each year without fouling up and we just deal with a handful
and still get a goodly number of those wrong.
Dave Baker
I'm well aware of the legal definition of murder (I'm now wondering if you
are) including that originally given by Lord Chief Justice Coke which
included the necessary condition 'malice aforethought'. It is a presumption,
unless proven otherwise, that police acting in the course of their duties
are not acting out of malice even when their intention is to kill and on
that rests the reason for my opinion in this and other threads.
AlanG
<Pumaracing(NoEmails)@aol.com> wrote:
A lot of those wrong incidents are where the police have to be
reminded it is not illegal to own a gun or anything that looks like a
gun. Charging onto someone's property and threatening to shot them
because they were allegedly *seen with a gun* is one of those
incidents
joe parkin
<Pumaracing(NoEmails)@aol.com> says...
> thinking they were chasing an armed felon - maybe even an IRA terrorist
They were not *chasing* anyone. The same two coppers would presumably
react the same way in any situation that involved anyone who was
carrying a bag with something in.
--
joeparkinchineseatbtinternetdotcom
Just Another Legal Fan
Yes and on a bigger scale, Tony Blair and Bush pulled the same stunt in
Iraq
and I'm certain that they will get away with it just as these plod
will.
Dave Baker
Richard Miller <ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:FQgZPy9p...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...
What it made clear is that a soldier, as with a policeman, is presumed not
to be acting with malice aforethought unless proven otherwise.
Peter
<Pumaracing(NoEmails)@aol.com> wrote:
>> Shot dead: Harry Stanley
>>
>>
>> Two Metropolitan Police officers have been arrested on suspicion of
>> murder in connection with the death of a painter and decorator killed
>> by police marksmen.
>>
>> Harry Stanley, 46, from Hackney, east London, was shot in the head and
>> hand on September 22, 1999 after a table leg he was carrying in a bag
>> was mistaken for a gun.
>>
>> The two officers have been arrested on suspicion of murder, gross
>> negligence, manslaughter and conspiracy to pervert the course of
>> justice by Surrey Police officers.
>>
>> They have been released on bail to return to a Surrey Police station on
>> June 16, pending further inquiries.
>>
>
>Astonishingly enough, according to AOL news this appears to be true. I too
>hold out little hope of a conviction but it will be interesting to see the
>outcome.
>
>
It would seem that they have not had any court appearance, but instead
are on police bail (anyone who knows procedures better please correct
me). It follows that while this state of affairs exist they cannot be
named nor can they be detained. All may be revealed on 16 June, they
may be well advised to take their toothbrushes and other items with
them when they go to Guildford or wherever. The beauty of them being
on police bail is that they are not permitted to communicate with
potential witnesses, the family of the victim etc. Moreover it is far
more stressful for a suspect to be at liberty (with bail limitations)
under such circumstances than in Brixton prison. Nothing like a
little 'tinkerbell' as well (the Surrey Police could easily get such a
warrant).
Note very carefully that if they were previously charged with murder /
manslaughter and a jury then entered a not guilty verdict, they could
not be charged again with such an offence - the 'double jeopardy'
rule. This is another reason why the Crown Prosecuting Service makes
reasonably sure that it has the ducks in a row before recommending
prosecution.
Although naturally Harry's family and friends would rather have had
this wrapped up at the time, they would probably prefer a conviction
in 2005 than a 'not guilty' verdict in 2000. Assuming it comes to
court it will be interesting to hear why the initial investigation
went 'up the shute'.
In the light of this development it is wrong to hold out little hope
of a conviction. The likelihood of a conviction now is 'probable',
this would be the current assessment of the CPS. I would doubt that
any jury would be receptive to violin playing by defence lawyers.
Mike
>
> What it made clear is that a soldier, as with a policeman, is presumed not
> to be acting with malice aforethought unless proven otherwise.
I thought everyone was presumed innocent until proven otherwise.
--
Mike
Dave Baker
Mike <spam...@fensoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:429f8bae$0$38044$5a6a...@news.aaisp.net.uk...
LOL - I guess you've never been up before a magistrates bench then eh ?
Richard Miller
<Pumar...@aol.com> writes
>I'm well aware of the legal definition of murder (I'm now wondering if
>you are) including that originally given by Lord Chief Justice Coke
>which included the necessary condition 'malice aforethought'. It is a
>presumption, unless proven otherwise, that police acting in the course
>of their duties are not acting out of malice even when their intention
>is to kill and on that rests the reason for my opinion in this and
>other threads.
But look at the Lee Clegg case. He fired several shots. The last, fatal
shot was after the car had passed, and at a time when he no longer had
reason to believe he was at risk. That was held to be murder.
On the same basis, these coppers *could* be found guilty of murder too,
although I agree that manslaughter is more likely and probably more
reasonable.
--
Richard Miller
Alex Heney
<news:429f19a6$0$18643$1472...@news.sunsite.dk> wrote:
> Rob <rsvptorob-u...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:d7n455$mn7$1...@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>> Dave Baker wrote:
>>||| The two officers have been arrested on suspicion of murder, gross
>>||| negligence, manslaughter and conspiracy to pervert the course of
>>||| justice by Surrey Police officers.
>>|||
>>||| They have been released on bail to return to a Surrey Police
>>||| station on June 16, pending further inquiries.
>>|||
>>||
>>|| Astonishingly enough, according to AOL news this appears to be true.
>>|| I too hold out little hope of a conviction but it will be
>>|| interesting to see the outcome.
>>
>> I wouldn't hope for a murder conviction because I don't think it was
> murder,
>> manslaughter at most. However I am pleased that at last their actions will
>> be subject to proper public scrutiny.
>
> I agree that it wasn't murder and I'm surprised they (if it is in fact the
> two shooters who have been arrested) have been charged with that.
I'm not quite so sure, although from what we know of the case, it seems
more reasonable to be manslughter.
> I also see
> little chance of police officers acting in the course of their duties being
> convicted of manslaughter however idiotic their approach to the situation
> was. Gross negligence seems fair enough
If the above is *possible* then the law is wrong.
If you kill somebody by gross negligence, I thought that was pretty well
the definition of manslaughter.
--
Alex Heney
Global Villager
If I can't fix it, it's probably dead.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTPLUSDOTcom
Alex Heney
<news:1117724583.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>I agree that it wasn't murder
>
> It most certainly WAS murder.
Rubbish.
To prove murder, they will have to prove that the policemen did not believe
there was a real and immediate danger to life presented by the man they
killed.
We do not know enough to be able to say this was "certainly" the case, so
we cannot say it certainly was murder.
>There is also the little matter of
> attempting to pervert the course of justice.
>
Probably.
--
Alex Heney
Global Villager
In youth we learn; in age we understand.
Dave Baker
Which is precisely what I said in a previous post. It would only be murder
if they wantonly killed HS after he had surrendered or in some other
situation in which they no longer thought they were at risk. That would
introduce the element of malice which is otherwise presumed to be absent
while they are acting in the course of their duties. Making a genuine
mistake as to whether HS really held a gun does not of itself make his
killing murder.