Well, after years of sodding about, the 2 officers concerned in the 'table leg' shooting have finally been told that they will not be prosecuted, something, that appears to have been obvious for a very long time.
Would any other occupation have their staff treated in this way?
I watched the Item on ITV news for once the Police representitive did not allow the bint on the desk to shut him up , she did try and interupt him but he ignored her the look on her face was magic, he said it was time the public heard the other side of the story,the man was a know violent criminal,he had been known to the police as they say, for twenty years he had in the past commited armed robbery with a sawn off shotgun,he had freightened the people in the pub he had just left so much they locked him out turned out the lights and called the police,the reason the table leg was wrapped in a cloth and resemble a sawn off shotgun was because that was exactly what he wanted people to think it was, he was challenged ,turned and pointed his parcel at the police officers ,that was it ,one less scumbag in the world. Well done chaps
Location: Retired to Bisley from the small African nation
This will be the same organisation that shot a man not wearing bulky clothes who didn't vault a barrier into a tube station, didn't not stop when challenged and didn't blow himself up when grabbed by a large man shouting police.
Agreed the police have a tough job, but there have been too many shootings where they engaged someone at close quarters when that person presented no direct threat to anyone except the officers engaging. I thought containment and negotiation was supposed to be the approach, not confrontation provoking reaction that might later allow the courts to accept a rather thin self-defence argument for opening fire.
What statistics are you using sven? Or are you just recycling something you read in the newspapers and wanting to sound trendily liberal?
Why do you say the defence is thin? Exactly how much do you know about this incident? More than the policeman that Tony Draper is paraphrasing, who seems to show that the defence is far stronger than I thought it was? How come you know more than he does?
Location: Retired to Bisley from the small African nation
The three cases that spring to mind are Stephen Waldorf, Harry Stanley and the Stockwell Tube shooting.
In all three the police had information that they were dealing with a dangerous armed criminal. In all three that information was incorrect (Harry Stanley may actually have been such though it's news to me having been following this type of event for years; the point is that the police didn't know that at the time - they had no information as to who or what he was other than a report of an Irishman with a shotgun in a pub - Harry Stanley had a regional accent but was not Irish). In every case they approached to conversational range before challenging. In every case they opened fire on the basis of a prior percieved threat rather than a threat observed at the time. In every case there was no actual threat. In every case they shot an unarmed man. In one case they were fortunately incompetent enough not to kill. In every case they initially reported the incident in terms which tended to justify the decision to open fire. In every case they were found to have been in their initial report, at the most charitable interpretation, exaggerating.
There have been other examples, mostly of drunks waving swords or airguns, where the police have (justifiably in my view) been exonerated when they have shot someone, where nevertheless more care in checking the facts and observing the situation would probably have led to a less drastic outcome.
Yes, that would be the same organisation that didn't say he had a bulky jacket on (witnesses did) did not say he jumped the barrier(witnesses did) No he didn't blow himself up, but then the officers that shot him didn't know he wasn't going too, and if you want to make that decision in the time space avaialble then I can give you the link to join and show us all how to do it better!
You answer your own point really though, doesn't mnatter who the threat is too, the public OR the officers engaging, if the officers have a reasonable belief they, or anyone else is in danger then its bang time! I checked my conditions of service from when I was a policeman, and they don't mention me getting killed!
Negociate? If you are shouted at by an armed policeman to drop something, then you drop it! If you then point what you are holding at the above armed policeman, then, sorry, but there is nothing thin about the self defence argument.
The Police Federation (like a union, but without any real union thump) have done a very good job supporting the 2 officers, and I applaud them, that now they can tell the other side they are!
And I am sorry, but your last post consists of some utter B******ks!
'Incompatant enough not to kill'? Please go find out more about that incident. By the way, the officers concerned were aquitted by a jury, so no crime was committed by them.
So 2 out of the 3 incidents you mention, your assessment is incorrect. The officers have been exonarted by a jury in the first case, and the CPS obviously know they will loose the second. The third is being investigated, so we'll see what happens there.
So sven you're basing your sweeping statement on 3 incidents over 23 years? When the Metropolitan police call out armed response on average 30 times a day? Can you actually be serious? That is astonishing. In one of the cases the man was a known nutter who wanted to make out he had a shotgun.
more care in checking the facts and observing the situation would probably have led to a less drastic outcome
Who on Earth are you to judge that? You were not there in any of those cases. You are condemning people who had the courage to make split-second decisions that affected the lives of many people, from the courage of your keyboard. Before you criticise anyone like that, go out and put yourself in the situation or one that is equivalent. At the very least find out some facts to back up what you are saying, instead of making off-the-cuff remarks and random assumptions.
Yess, I am very pleased that after years of being messed about, finally someone has realised that there is not any evidence against these 2 officers.
I agee with your point one, I have said it on many occations.
Moving on from that, until someone comes up with a better idea, they are armed and have the same right as everyone else to defend themselves and everyone else.
Interesting comment about holding fire and courage. Please, support it with some evidence.
Also, please explain the common thread between the 3 incidents.
Although of course you should bare in mind that in 2 of the 3 the officers concerned have been cleared of any criminal offence. Are you then suggesting that the common thread is that they should be cleared of the third?
Or are you suggesting that they have been untruthful? If so, its a bit of a rich statement from you!
Talking out of your backside again? I'm surprised you're not saying this is a government conspiracy to persuade people to make war on people with table legs.
I have never been in the police. I have never said I have been in the police.
Teachers are not invariably rejected as jurors - one of my mother's colleagues served on a jury. What this has to do with police and guns is beyond any rational analysis, but there you go.
They never seem to have the plain courage to hold their fire until they're sure the target is actually a threat.
Where are your statistics or arguments to back this up? I have shown a statistic that completely disproves this (from a Met spokesman on the radio yesterday - armed officers called to 30 incidents a day).
So who is to protect the public if all police are unarmed? I agree that most should be, but that is absurd. As you say, police sort out criminal disputes, some of which involve firearms. Should we just give in and allow armed criminals whatever they want now? Why do you suddenly decide that soldiers are the only ones who should carry guns? Where did that come from, and what is the justification behind it?
Where do you get the sweeping generalisation that police think someone looks shifty so he must have done something?
Of course the police think someone on trial has; it would be absurd otherwise since the vast majority are only on trial because the police think they did something. Private prosecutions are rare. Do you have your logic completely the wrong way round, or do you think that the police should prosecute people who they don't think have done anything? Don't you think that takes equality a little too far?
bjcc ”Police (Finally) cleared over shooting.” They haven’t been cleared. They’ve been told they will not be prosecuted. You’ve previously pointed out (correctly) that the fact there isn’t sufficient evidence to prosecute someone doesn’t necessarily mean they didn't commit an offence. I agree. Do you think people should bear that in mind in this instance?
You’ve frequently been disparaging about the CPS attitude to prosecutions (as you see it) saying that, in your experience, the CPS often wrongly concludes there isn’t enough evidence even though there is. Should people bear that in mind in this instance?
”Would any other occupation have their staff treated in this way?” Yes. More to the point, any occupation where employees are given the right in law to take someone else’s life.
Referring to a previous case, you say: ” the officers concerned were aquitted by a jury, so no crime was committed by them.” Interesting. You’ve consistently argued the opposite - but, in those discussions, the people acquitted weren’t policemen. And: "The officers have been exonarted by a jury" Again, you've previously pointed out (correctly) that a Not Guilty verdict doesn't mean someone has been exonerated - in discussions where the people acquitted weren't policemen.
"finally someone has realised that there is not any evidence against these 2 officers." That may well be true - but you aren't in a position to say whether or not it is.
I'm not suggesting that anyone should do anything other than presume innocence in this case, but I am struck (yet again) by your propensity to apply double standards depending upon whether the subject of the discussion is a policeman.
Send Clowns ”Shame no-one dares to say there was no case at all to answer. Insufficient evidence sounds too much as if the CPS just can't prove it.” No case at all? Perhaps there was – I have no idea. The tests applied by the CPS are: (1) Is there sufficient evidence to prosecute someone for an offence? (2) If so, is it in the public interest to do so? I enjoy your posts. I love the way you accuse others of jumping to conclusions with insufficient information, whilst doing precisely the same thing yourself. There’s sometimes a good rational argument hidden in all the huff and puff and rude abuse directed at people with whom you disagree. The fun is not knowing when I start reading a post whether it will contain a pearl.
Re the assertions by the Police Federation spokesman: Assuming what he said is true, it’s only relevant if the policemen concerned knew it at the time.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 21st Oct 2005 at 10:25.
What depresses me most about episodes such as this is your usual inability to display one iota of sympathy for the folks affected by these incidents; i.e. the relatives of innocent people shot and killed.
I usually ignore Mr Draper's hyperbole, though from his points raised do any of those character features warrant meeting an untimely end following a 9mm invasion from Mr H&K? The Police do a job I would not wish to do, they must however be held accountable for their actions; in this case the CPS has decided that there is insufficient evidence to support a prosecution. Mr Stanley's supporters hold a different view which is somewhat inevitable.
All I ask is, instead of your usual battering ram approach to debate just try and deny your unshakeable belief in your own rightness and see another point of view (go on - you know you want to!!).
I am alwyas willing to back up my statements when challenged. I always give others a chance to do so.
I have read the comments by the Police representative, that says they think this man had the intention of making people believe he had a shotgun and that he is thought to have swung it towards the police. It is known that the police had reason to believe he had a shotgun, because it is on record that the police attended the scene because that was the belief, so yes they did know it at the time. The armed officers in question had not been on the scene long enough to be assured that he did not have a shotgun. Surely that is "sufficient information" to come to the conclusion that there is no case to answer.
Notice I do not assume that the police were telling the truth when they said he seemed to point the "gun" at them. However a simple suggestion that they might be lying, with no apparent evidence to back this up, is not a case, is it? Do you know of any such evidence? If there is then I have missed it in the news.
Unless the representative of the police was lying about the evidence available, and I am he would have been challenged if not, I can see no reasonable case. Yet the term "insufficient evidence" leaves a nasty impression that the CPS still believes them guilty. Yet it is always the term used. There has been a lot of pressure for a prosecution. I suspect (note I only say suspect) if there was any case the CPS would have tried it.
I have no sympathy for a former armed robber who intimidates people forces police to shoot him. That includes Stanley and the man who had the pistol-shaped lighter, in fact any imitation firearm. The Waldorf case I can't remember as I was quite young, and the Stockwell case has not been fully investigated yet, so how can I know how much sympathy to have?
What astounds me is the disgraceful lack of sympathy shown to the police. I see that point of view quite clearly, I just hope that my disgust with it shows. The police who shoot someone who turns out to be unarmed have their lives torn apart.
Firstly they are automatically under investigation. They are likely to be suspended, and must feel under suspiscion from that moment. The incident is investigated and there is always a group of people around the person who was killed who accuse them of dereliction of duty and even murder, and they are always vocal and take along a section of the population. There are always some who will assume guilt of the police.
Even worse for some would be the guilt at having hurt or killed someone who did not need to be hurt. Yet in some cases it is forced upon them. As far as we can tell from the information in the public domain that is the case with teh Stanley shooting. Unless you have any other information.
In the last 12 years 30 people have been shot dead by the police. None have been convicted.
It's a fact that the victim in the related shooting was shot in the back and the back of his head. Officers stating that the victim turned around "in a slow, deliberate, fluid motion" should be at least charged with gross negligence. At the other hand, was he wearing a ski-jacket?
P.S. Surely everyone has the right to take someone's life. They are only allowed to do so in self defence or defence of third parties, but then so are the police.
30 in 12 years is a remarkably small number, considering the levels of violent crime in that time. Are you suggesting that someone should have been convicted? What if in each case the police genuinely believed that there was a threat? Should someone be convicted just to satisfy your assumption that the statistics should show a conviction?
Even the CPS admitted that they could not show gross negligence. What do you know that they don't?