Policewoman jailed over shooting

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by mac1, Apr 16, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. bloody 'ell...

  2. Heather Mills with a firearm! Scary! 8O
  3. I'm just surprised that any polis has been jailed for shooting someone. They're normally even more immune to prosecution than drunk drivers.
  4. More surprised she actually hit anything !!
  5. oooooh..I try not to bite so fast these days, but that is such a bone misinformed ignorant and plain thick post....immune from prosecution? tell that to the lads who have lost their livelihoods, families houses etc after only doing their job withing the training and law that they have been given.
    Fallen foul of the Old Bill yourself have you? sounds like sour grapes to me you silly boy.
    Grow up.
  6. YesItsMe

    YesItsMe LE Good Egg (charities)

    equitable decision - 12 years' fine ;)
  7. She was probably aiming for his b0llocks! :twisted:
  8. I was replying to the "more immune than drunk drivers" one, which is still bone, but as regards "surprised she hit anything" - fair one.
  9. Her standard of markmanship (or should it be markswoman/markspersonship?) is pretty abysmal! Couldn't hit a bus if she was on it.
  10. At first it sounded like poor firearms training standards with two close range shots only wounding. Of reading a few other articles that stated she had consumed a bottle and a half of wine before the shooting and hit him in the groin and neck it did not seem as bad.

    Dreadfull looking thing. I wouldn't do her unless forced at gunpoint.
  11. onI think the wrong pig was shot
  12. Not fallen foul, old chap. Mainly because I hardly ever see them, I suspect.

    I could argue as well the number of innocent people shot dead by armed police where the policeman has faced no disciplinary action whatsoever. Whether they're "within the training and the law" is rather irrelevant when there's a needlessly empty space at your dinner table. Don't you think?

    I grew up quite a while ago. South Armagh, if you're interested. If I'd shot anyone then, I'd have got a lot worse than suspended on full pay pending being cleared, regardless of how clear-cut the circumstances.

    Bite away.
  13. Bone maybe; accurate certainly :thumright: :

    Harry Stanley was a 46-year-old Scottish painter and decorator. 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 PC Fagan and Inspector Sharman, an armed response unit from the Metropolitan Police service specialist firearms unit SO 19, arrived in the area. The officers approached Mr Stanley from behind. They shouted, “Stop, armed police!” Mr Stanley (who had no reason to imagine that the police wanted him or that they were indeed police officers) did not stop at that command. The police say that they shouted again, to which Mr Stanley responded by turning around. The police officers opened fire, 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.

    Surrey Police carried out a criminal investigation under the supervision of the Police Complaints Authority (which was replaced in April 2004 by the IPCC). In June 2002, after the CPS decided the officers should not face criminal charges, an inquest jury returned an ‘open verdict’, but this was quashed by the High Court and a second inquest was held in October 2004. The second inquest jury returned a verdict of unlawful killing, but this was also quashed by the High Court last year.

    However, the officers were arrested by Surrey Police in June 2005, after new forensic evidence emerged. The damage caused to the rear of the left shoulder of Harry Stanley’s jacket indicated that the fatal shot DID come from behind him before entering the left side of his head, above his ear.

    When Surrey Police and the officers obtained expert opinions about the new forensic evidence a reasonable doubt was nevertheless raised that the officers and Harry Stanley both had time to perceive a threat to each other before the fatal shot was fired. Therefore, in October 2005, the CPS announced that they had advised Surrey that there was insufficient evidence to charge the officers with any criminal offence, including perjury.

    “The Stanley family have been utterly failed by the criminal justice system. This decision follows a pattern of cases where police officers have escaped criminal and disciplinary charges following controversial deaths. The officers’ accounts of the events surrounding the shooting of Harry Stanley were not accepted by two inquest juries and the credibility of their evidence has also been questioned by the IPPC. The fact that these officers can shoot dead an unarmed man and walk away untouched is abhorrent. The rule of law must apply equally to all citizens including those in police uniform and where they are suspected of a criminal offence they should be treated like any other suspect.

    INQUEST calls on the Home Secretary to ensure that the strong recommendation of the IPCC to end the discredited police practice of ‘pooling recollections’ after deaths in custody is implemented immediately. Public confidence in the criminal justice system as it relates to the police has been severely undermined by this decision. At a time when there is a massive increase of the number of armed police on our streets, it is imperative that the public have confidence in their ability to act professionally and safely and that they are properly held to account for their actions. While these officers can get on with their lives the Stanley family have lost a much loved husband, father and grandfather forever.”


  14. bergen - you can be sure this incident ruined the lives of PC Fagan and Inspector Sharman, and they have this on their conscience forever. Not easy.
  15. However, Fagan and Sharman still had lives to ruin, Mr Stanley does not.

    This can be distinguished from the police shooting in which a Police Constable shot a Sgt inside a police station.