That Chap Evading the Authorities in Northumberland

[wingstoo]

It used to be the case that no one can "order" a police marksman to kill, or even open fire on a human "target", it has to be the individual officers choice whether to pull the trigger as it is going to be him who is charged with the shooting.

The officer who fires the shot has to justify (to himself) and others that there was a need to carry out the action he took in a court of law and if proven beyond reasonable doubt that there was no other course of action available at that precise moment that he pulled the trigger the officer may be found guilty of , up to, murder.

If a person points a banana wrapped in a plastic bag at an armed police officer and says that he has a gun and is going to shoot the officer it is quite justifiable that if the officer feels that his life or any member of the publics is immenently at risk to shoot the person using the rule of minimum force, that may be to wound the person or even to kill the person.

I guess that there will be a response to this from some of the active police officers on here as to the accuracy of my understanding.

Wings

 

[JonathanD]

Senior members of the police force have publicly stated that, under an armed police force, innocents will be killed. And there have been many examples

Got any reference to that?

The death penalty was banned in the UK, because of the fact that there can never be absolute conclusive evidence of a persons guilt

Bit of a sweeping statement there

In fact, I don't believe the police can do anything right in the eyes of some members of this society who would be only too happy to see them come to their aid. Your post is utter tosh Dave, no offence meant deliberately but come on, give the police a chance.

To add to that, the police have to obey the same laws as us, and follow a very strict legal procedure if a shot is fired in the line of duty. The fact that they are given firearms in the first place and must face unspecified threats in this day and age is something that nobody outside of that scenario can possibly understand. I'm sure a few of my fellow brothers in arms remember the yellow card in NI. Hmmmmm....

On that note it's time to bow out of this thread before it goes into boil over.

 

[Dave]

Senior members of the police force have publicly stated that, under an armed police force, innocents will be killed. And there have been many examples

Got any reference to that?

The death penalty was banned in the UK, because of the fact that there can never be absolute conclusive evidence of a persons guilt

Bit of a sweeping statement there

In fact, I don't believe the police can do anything right in the eyes of some members of this society who would be only too happy to see them come to their aid. Your post is utter tosh Dave, no offence meant deliberately but come on, give the police a chance.

Happy to respond Rik. Bear with me. [Hopefully no mod will swoop in and close it, before I have a chance to.]

It is not at all utter tosh.

 

[Dave]

Senior members of the police force have publicly stated that under an armed police force, innocents will be killed.

Im not going to search google for a link. [Others be my guest.] Its certainly true enough though. [And pretty obvious.]

And there have been many examples.

I do not have the statistics, {not that I suppose it matters, as just a few are are too many}

Take the case of Harry Stanley,

http://news.scotsman.com/harrystanley/The-long-fight-to-win.2577059.jp

a 46-year-old painter and decorator, who walked into a bank, took some money, out, then left. No altercation took place.
The bank teller then told her manager that a man with a bag, and an irish accent had been at the counter.
Manager called the police. Police called an armed repsonse unit.
After a case of Chinese whispers, Harry Stanley, was executed in cold blood by unmarked armed police, [Inspector Neil Sharman] shot him dead, as Harry turned to face them.

Chf Insp Sharman said: "The bag was held down by his right-hand side. It was cylindrical, it was the right length and shape for a shotgun. As we turned the corner, Mr Stanley was walking away from us and that's when we challenged him. We were shouting: Stop police!' I was saying: Drop the gun!' I said it two, three times, very loudly.

They jumped to a conclusion, mistook the table leg, inside the shopping bag, for a sawn off shot gun, and when he turned they shot and killed him.
Harry had no previous convictions.

The CPS announced that they would not press charges.

Over the next six years, Chf Insp Sharman attended two inquests, the second of which ruled Mr Stanley had been killed unlawfully. He was suspended, though later reinstated to desk duties. He has been working at Barnet police headquarters in Colindale.

This thread is going to go off topic, and, on this forum, I am sure, may be censored, or closed.

So, in summation, Im not anti police. I was merely making a [slightly off topic, yet I believe relevant] point.

 

[Martyn]

Therefore, even though in these circumstances, [arguably] the police should have the right to kill, to protect the public, however, if, the police get it wrong, the police themselves should be subject to the same justice as the rest of us.

That's ridiculous. The "rest oif us" are not lawfully charged with the duty of protecting our society with firearms. It's a unique position and demands unique considerations. If you give a policeman a live firearm and instruct him to use it to discharge his duty and most importantly, place himself in harms way and use his best judgement, then you cannot pursue that individual for making a mistake to the same extent that you can and should persecute a criminal for illegally and unlawfully killing someone.

Certainly all errors of judgement that result in the loss of life should be investigated fully and transparently, but if it is found that the officer made an error of judgement that any similar professional firearms officer may make under those circumstances, then there is no crime, even if the action results in the loss of an innocent life. Like it or not, the only people who are in a position to evaluate this are professional firearms officers - the police themselves. Even if it is found that the officer was incompetent, providing he was acting in good faith in an attempt to discharge his duty, there is no crime. You can pursue him for his lack of competence, but you cannot pursue him for murder. This is the logical, rational and reasonable cost that we all pay for having an armed police force. The notion that someone who is charged with the task of placing themselves in harms way and given the lawful authority to protect civilians with a live firearm, should be prosecuted for an error of judgement as if he were a common criminal, is insane.

The alternative, is to have a completely unarmed police force, which would leave every one of us at the mercy of any nutjob with a gun and the will to use it. It's a no-brainer.

 

[wingstoo]

I think it is important to distinguish between "Capital punishment" and the "Death penalty" and "Being shot by an armed police officer"

The three are all very different.

The Death penalty is/was handed down by Courts of law following trial

Capital punishment is/was the taking of a persons life after being found guilty of a crime where a sentence of death was handed down.

Being shot by an armed police officer is usually in response to a person acting in a way that the officer believes that his actions will stop injury or death to themselves or a member of the public.

Wings

In the case of Mr Stanley

Table leg man was armed robber
By Patrick McGowan Last updated at 00:00am on 20.06.02
Add your view

The man shot dead by police who mistook the table leg he was carrying for a sawn-off shotgun was a convicted armed robber who had also just served a four-year sentence for grievous bodily harm.

There were angry scenes at the inquest on Harry Stanley today when police introduced evidence of his past criminal record. In a restrained but furious clash between Timothy Owen QC, representing Mr Stanley's family, and coroner Dr Stephen Chan, Mr Owen was ordered to sit down after he asked what the relevance of Mr Stanley's record was.

The inquest, which has been told Mr Stanley "deliberately" turned towards two armed police officers who challenged him, was told his last conviction, in 1993, was for grievous bodily harm with intent for which he served four years. The inquest was told there were a number of "spent" convictions which normally would not be made public. These dated back to 1963 and included offences for which he had served several terms of imprisonment including robbery and possession of drugs.

In 1974 he was convicted of armed robbery. "A sawn-off shotgun was used in that incident?" said Dr Chan.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-437852-table-leg-man-was-armed-robber.do

I guess there are many sides to what really happened and we chose the one that suits.

 

[Dave]

That's ridiculous. If you give a policeman a live firearm and instruct him to use it to discharge his duty and most importantly, place himself in harms way and use his best judgement, then you cannot pursue that individual for making a mistake to the same extent that you can and should persecute a criminal for illegally and unlawfully killing someone.

Certainly all errors of judgement that result in the loss of life should be investigated fully and transparently, but if it is found that the officer made an error of judgement that any similar professional firearms officer may make under those circumstances, then there is no crime, even if the action results in the loss of an innocent life. Like it or not, the only people who are in a position to evaluate this are professional firearms officers - the police themselves. Even if it is found that the officer was incompetent, providing he was acting in good faith in an attempt to discharge his duty, there is no crime. You can pursue him for his lack of competence, but you cannot pursue him for murder. This is the logical, rational and reasonable cost that we all pay for having an armed police force. The notion that someone who is charged with the task of placing themselves in harms way and given the lawful authority to protect civilians with a live firearm, should be prosecuted for an error of judgement as if he were a common criminal, is insane.

The alternative, is to have a completely unarmed police force, which would leave every one of us at the mercy of any nutjob with a gun and the will to use it. It's a no-brainer.

Firstly, I am not a lawyer, nor expert in the law. Im guessing you are not either Martyn.

You have a point, certainly. Maybe Police officers should not be charged with Murder, given the circumstances you hypothesize.

I do not know whether it is possible for a police officer to be charged with murder, under the circumstances you highlight? [Im of the mind, that it should be possible, and guessing that it probably is]


Certainly all errors of judgement that result in the loss of life should be investigated fully and transparently, but if it is found that the officer made an error of judgement that any similar professional firearms officer may make under those circumstances, then there is no crime, even if the action results in the loss of an innocent life.

I believe some officers involved in some firearm events, have been charged with Manslaughter.

Im also pretty sure that anyone, who holds a similiar point of view to yourself, would change their mind pretty quickly, if a family member was killed, in a situation like the one outlined above.
[Not that, that is particularly relevant]

Again. Im not anti police.

But I absolutely believe in certain cases, like the Harry Stanley case, and others, justice was in no way served. And frankly I am at a loss, as to understand anyone who thinks otherwise.

 

[MrEd]

five members of the armed forces were killed in action in Afghanistan - a much greater tragedy, and far more deserving of our sympathy.

Absolutely. Hear Hear.

 

[Martyn]

Firstly, I am not a lawyer, nor expert in the law. Im guessing you are not either Martyn.

You have a point, certainly. Maybe Police officers should not be charged with Murder, given the circumstances you hypothesize.

I do not know whether it is possible for an police officer to be charged with murder, under the circumstances you highlight? [Im of the mind, that it should be possible, and guessing that it probably is]


Certainly all errors of judgement that result in the loss of life should be investigated fully and transparently, but if it is found that the officer made an error of judgement that any similar professional firearms officer may make under those circumstances, then there is no crime, even if the action results in the loss of an innocent life.

However, I believe some officers involved in some firearm events, have been charged with Manslaughter.

Im also pretty sure that anyone, who holds a similiar point of view to yourself, would change their mind pretty quickly, if a family member was killed, in a situation like the one outlined above.
[Not that, that is particularly relevant]

Again. Im not anti police.

Lawyer or not is irrelevant. What you are suggesting is that every time a mistake is made, an officer should be prosecuted and that is just... well.

If an officer is found to be negligent, then that is different. If the officer is negligent - in other words they neglect to do their duty, then they can and should be prosecuted. But if the officer was doing his best to carry out his duty to the fullest of his ability, but still made a mistake, then there is no crime, nor should there be - even if an innocent person dies as a result. Mistakes happen, lives will be lost. But it does not mean that every time a mistake is made, a crime has been committed.

It's a judgement call and you must give the police lawful authority for them to exercise their judgement. That comes at a price, that means sometimes mistakes will happen and it also means that sometimes it will be abused. You have to accept the honest mistakes and hope to catch the abusers, that is all you can reasonably do. If you prosecute all police officers for making honest mistakes, no matter how severe the consequences, if you destroy a policeman's life for making an error of judgement while trying to do his duty, then you might as well hand over the job of policing this country to the nearest gang of thugs willing to do the job, because no decent person with an ounce of common sense would join the police force under those circumstances. Be careful what you wish for.

You're right, I'm not a lawyer and the points of law in my argument may be flawed, but it's the logic of yours that is flawed.

 

[apj1974]

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co...-when-mister-moat-was-busy-selling-drugs.html

 

[JonathanD]

If an officer is found to be negligent, then that is different. If the officer is negligent - in other words they neglect to do their duty, then they can and should be prosecuted. But if the officer was doing his best to carry out his duty to the fullest of his ability, but still made a mistake, then there is no crime, nor should there be - even if an innocent person dies as a result. Mistakes happen, lives will be lost. But it does not mean that every time a mistake is made, a crime has been committed.

It's a judgement call and you must give the police lawful authority for them to exercise their judgement. That comes at a price, that means sometimes mistakes will happen and it also means that sometimes it will be abused. You have to accept the honest mistakes and hope to catch the abusers, that is all you can reasonably do. If you prosecute all police officers for making honest mistakes, no matter how severe the consequences, if you destroy a policeman's life for making an error of judgement while trying to do his duty, then you might as well hand over the job of policing this country to the nearest gang of thugs willing to do the job, because no decent person with an ounce of common sense would join the police force under those circumstances. Be careful what you wish for.

Very well put.

 

[wingstoo]

In the case of Mr Stanely the following happened

over 100 armed officers returned their weapons, with Glen Smyth, a Police Federation spokesman saying, "The officers are very concerned that the tactics they are trained in, as a consequence of the verdict, are now in doubt."

Also according to polls taken ove rthe last decade or so

Public support for reintroduction of capital punishment
A November 2009 television survey showed that 70% favoured reinstating the death penalty for at least one of the following crimes: armed robbery, rape, paedophilia, terrorism, adult murder, child murder, child rape, treason, child abuse, or kidnapping. However, respondents only favoured capital punishment for adult murder, the polling question asked by other organizations such as Gallup, by small majorities or pluralities: overall, 51% favoured the death penalty for adult murder, while 56% in Wales did, 55% in Scotland, and only 49% in England

Although, as previously stated the two are very seperate issues.

Wings

 

[Dave]

Well, Ive made my point.

I hope he didnt commit suicide because he heard they were sending Gazza in.

 

[JonathanD]

Well, Ive made my point.

I hope he didnt commit suicide because he heard they were sending Gazza in.

It's actually a testament to the amazing members we have here that this thread has gone nine pages without sinking into verbal handbags at dawn despite the vastly different opinions. A few years ago, a thread like this would not have lasted three pages. Brilliant.

 

[Humpback]

Can we stop this thread, its as bad as the 24hr news services? Its not even roaulmoatly interesting!

I'll get my coat

 

[JonathanD]

Can we stop this thread, its as bad as the 24hr news services? Its not even roaulmoatly interesting!

I'll get my coat

You know you deserve it....

 

[Martyn]

Well, Ive made my point.

In the simplest terms, if a group of people take a decent man and give him a gun and say "please use this to protect us, but if an innocent person gets accidentally hurt by you, we will destroy your life", then that decent man is going to tell your group to take your gun and get stuffed. The only person that will take that job under those conditions, is someone with a reckless disregard for the consequences of making an error, whose primary motivation is going to be "cool, a machine gun", probably just about the last person you would want to give a loaded gun. Either that, or it will be someone so frightened of making a mistake, that they will fail to do the job when it is needed. That means either a dangerous person in the job, or a useless person in the job.

If you want the well rounded, diligent, hard working, conscientious, compassionate and intelligent man in that job, then you have to offer him some measure of immunity from the consequences of making a human mistake.

 

[Melonfish]

I've wanted to post this for so long but i think its finally justified...

No offence peeps i just think this thread is getting a bit

 

[Martyn]

Dont read it then.

 

[nickliv]

Paul the octopus got it right again