Firearms Officers cleared after 7 YEARS

#2
Yes. But the difference here is that it takes a while for the plod to find themselves not guilty, whereas the poor old soldier takes a while before finding himself up before the beak.

I agree, truncate the process - but let's not pretend that the plod are treated the same way as the squaddie.
 
#3
Well currentr form is to wait until it becomes politically expedient to have a witch hunt and then you can be subject to an massivley funded inquiry in order to appease whatever section of society Blair thinks he should surrender to.
 
#4
Storeman Norman said:
Yes. But the difference here is that it takes a while for the plod to find themselves not guilty.
You haven't got a clue, have you? The IPCC aren't police. Neither are the CPS.
 
#5
Vegetius said:
Storeman Norman said:
Yes. But the difference here is that it takes a while for the plod to find themselves not guilty.
You haven't got a clue, have you? The IPCC aren't police. Neither are the CPS.
My apologies. I'll re-phrase that...

Yes. But the difference here is that it takes a while for the IPCC / CPS to find the plod not guilty.
 
#6
It tells those firearms officers one thing.....don't be a firearms officer, because you are on your own if you shoot and kill someone,especially if there is a chance that the person is carrying a firearm or what looks like a firearm. Difficult decision at the time!
 
#7
As in all of these cases it is a serious decision to take a life. If you aren't prepared to be put on the spot don't volunteer for the job. It is right that all shootings by policemen are investigated. It is the same for servicemen who are working in Northern Ireland, and some of them have served time after being charged with murder.
 
#8
Locally a PC shot dead a naked man in bed, his excuse was he was frightened, but he did not say what off. The case against him was dismissed. Now if you were in the forces would you get away with an excuse like that, I don't think so. Lee Clegg a Paratrooper was given life for manslaughter when a group of five soldiers opened fire on car that went through a security check point with out stopping. Now with out any forensic evidence who fired the fatal shots that killed the two young car thieves, he got life
 
#9
Legal sources have suggested that not only does the report not identify the alleged culprit but it fails to clear officers who were not involved. The sources added that it would not be possible to consider charges until the person or people responsible had been identified. The CPS is thought to be "nowhere near" charging.
Source is here... and relates to the IPCC / CPS efforts to sort out the Menenzes nonsense.

and just how long did it take to nail a few squaddies after a fairly innocuous and well deserved thrashing of real criminals in Basra?
 
#10
Lord_Wentworth said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4695604.stm

It has taken 7 years to clear these two men. What message does that send out to the Police or indeed, the Armed Forces? Innocent or guilty the matter should be dealt with immediately. It is, afterall, the morale of the whole unit that is at stake not just the careers or lives of those accused.
Call me old fashioned BUT

Shotgun


Bag



I know my recognition drills are a bit rusty these days, but not a million years ago I had a yellow card that set down the rules for opening fire, but it wasnt at bags, and before anyone jumps up and down and says 'oh but the local intel told us he was armed' Ill say no more....................
 
#11
What's the surprise? Coppers always get off. Just watch, those coppers that shot that Brazilian lad 7-8 times in between bites of their sandwiches and crossword puzzles will also get off. The other firearms coppers will threaten to down tools and go back to whatever passes as beat policing these days.
 
#12
flipflop said:
What's the surprise? Coppers always get off. Just watch, those coppers that shot that Brazilian lad 7-8 times in between bites of their sandwiches and crossword puzzles will also get off. The other firearms coppers will threaten to down tools and go back to whatever passes as beat policing these days.
Well if you think you can make better judgements at a split second. Im sure SO19 would like to have you on board.
 
#13
emptyeye said:
Lord_Wentworth said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4695604.stm

It has taken 7 years to clear these two men. What message does that send out to the Police or indeed, the Armed Forces? Innocent or guilty the matter should be dealt with immediately. It is, afterall, the morale of the whole unit that is at stake not just the careers or lives of those accused.
Call me old fashioned BUT



I know my recognition drills are a bit rusty these days, but not a million years ago I had a yellow card that set down the rules for opening fire, but it wasnt at bags, and before anyone jumps up and down and says 'oh but the local intel told us he was armed' Ill say no more....................
Picture of a sawn off double barrel rather than a franchi SPAS 12 and a wrapped up plastic bag containing something that looks like a sawn off might make a better analogy. Then again, just what was it the yellow card said about if you believe yourself and others are in danger? (don't have mine to hand and I'm just recalling JSP 385)
 
#14
I saw a picture of the chair leg in question wrapped in a bin bag compared with a sawn off shotgun wrapped up the same way, they were indistinguishable. The Fig 11 concerned had bragged that he had a gun and was going to use it, had a long history of violence and pointed the "Gun" at officers when challenged. It wasn't unlawful killing, it was merely natural selection redressing the clever / dumb balance.
 
#15
I am amazed that the very people who complain about armchair critics having a go about the actions of soldiers in life threatening situations , are more than happy to sit back in their own armchairs and judge the actions of armed police officers in life threatening situations.
Anybody that believes that the IPCC has the interests of police officers at heart is living in cloud cuckoo land . Police officers have been found not guilty at court in the past only to have the verdict set aside/challenged. This doesn't happen very often to your average criminal. It is sometimes a case of keep on trying them until the right political verdict is reached.
Armed police officer is a job I would not want to do.
 
#16
Wow I have to admit that the thread was beginning to sacre me. I wondered if people honestly believed that the two officers simply walked up to a man carrying a plastic bag by the handles with a chair leg in it, did not challenge him and agreed to both shoot him fatally. Maybe members of the public believing he had a sawn off shot gun wrapped in a plastic bag called the police. They found male fitting description challenged him, due to his actions one feared for his own life the other for his colleagues and both fired independently from diferent positions. The rest is unfortunately well documented, though so is all the above if you get past the headlines. If they had been arrested for murder in the beginning under fast track investigations they would have to have been dealt with within 12 months, but this would put undue pressure on the IPCC to complete within a set timescale. My sympathy has always been with Lee Clegg. I have been dumbfounded as to how such a prosecution coluld be brought or not defended without forrensic identification. The capabillity of the threat was always the centre point of the prosecution. Did the then political geography have anything to do with the prosecution at the time ?, I know my answer.
 
#17
Lord_Wentworth said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4695604.stm

It has taken 7 years to clear these two men. What message does that send out to the Police or indeed, the Armed Forces? Innocent or guilty the matter should be dealt with immediately. It is, afterall, the morale of the whole unit that is at stake not just the careers or lives of those accused.
Sucks to be them.

This is the problem with the justice system--sometimes it can take a stupidly long time to make a legal judgement either way. Just look at Bloody Sunday, over 30 years later and people are STILL muling over what supposidly did and did not take place.
 
#18
It is always unfortunate when someone gets killed and in hindsight that appears to have been unjustified. It is even more unfortunate when a member of the forces of law and order gets slotted by the badnashes, because they had had their confidence in the ROEs, their chain of command and public will undermined allowing the wrong 'un to fire first.

As a former soldier and police officer it is really of less concern to me that an "innocent" person is accidentally killed than if a serving officer or Tom gets the good news. The number of really terrible miscarriages of ROEs over the last fifty years is trivial - though each case is a mighty tragedy to the family and friends of its' victim. If we start tying people's hands on the basis of every possible eventuality, then we start creating scenarios in which police/soldiers will only be able to return fire if that fire has been effective. That frankly is unacceptable and I certainly would not put myself in that position voluntarily...
 
#19
Tommy_Gun said:
I saw a picture of the chair leg in question wrapped in a bin bag compared with a sawn off shotgun wrapped up the same way, they were indistinguishable. The Fig 11 concerned had bragged that he had a gun and was going to use it, had a long history of violence and pointed the "Gun" at officers when challenged. It wasn't unlawful killing, it was merely natural selection redressing the clever / dumb balance.
Im not sure how you get that info, but here is some of the 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.

Of course, 1 round is an ND, a couple is a contact..wait out

And before any of the regular wobbly heads start to jump up and down, my lad is in the Met, so I am not against any copper.
 
#20
emptyeye said:
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.
If I had no reason to imagine the police wanted me but I heard "HaltorIshootthreetimes" or its civilian equivalent, then I think I might stop... :roll:
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads