Table-leg killers will not be charged.

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Cutaway, Oct 20, 2005.

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. Cutaway

    Cutaway LE Reviewer

    Stanley Case Timeline

    Sep 99: Mr Stanley shot dead
    Jun 02: Inquest returns open verdict
    Apr 03: High Court orders new inquest
    Oct 04: Inquest returns unlawful killing verdict
    May 05: High Court quashes second inquest verdict
    Jun 05: Two officers arrested
    Oct 05: CPS decides to take no action against the officers

    "We all readily accept the need for there to be full and proper legal scrutiny of these incidents when they happen. However justice is best served by a timely investigation and outcome."

    Interesting that the Met's Assistant Commissioner believes justice has a time limit...
  2. Rule for one................not for the other...FFS

    Paratrooper Lee Clegg was today sentenced to four years at Belfast Crown Court for the attempted unlawful wounding of a teenage joyrider shot dead in Belfast in 1990. Having already served four years, Clegg will not return to jail.
    After a long legal battle the soldier was acquitted at a retrial in March of murdering 18-year-old Karen Reilly, who was a passenger in a stolen car. But he was again convicted of the attempted unlawful wounding with intent of the Martin Peake, the car driver who was also shot dead.

    Peake, 17, was behind the wheel of the car when it raced through an army checkpoint in West Belfast in September 1990 and was fired on by Clegg's patrol.

    At the original trial in 1993 Clegg was given life for the murder of Miss Reilly and four years for shooting Martin Peake.

    Before launching a marathon series of appeals against his conviction Clegg spent close to four years in custody. He was finally cleared of the murder charge after a six-year battle through the courts and before 13 different judges.
  3. Certainly seems that way!!

    Didn't the Paras attempt to put the blame on the car for hitting one of their blokes and breaking his leg though? Not too sure about that one, but it wouldn't have helped Cleggs position.
  4. Yeah they did.

    Plus they werent justified in firing after the danger had passed. Thats when the fatality took place.
  5. End of the day, one scrote less. Bet he's missed.............not :lol:
  6. Based on what????
  7. The warm fuzzy feeling when I heard that that scrote was no longer slobbing round the streets causing no end of misery to ODF- your point is??
  8. Cutaway

    Cutaway LE Reviewer

    Does this warm fuzzy feeling extend the fact that it appears to be acceptable for certain people to kill someone on the hearsay of a phonecall ?

    The gentlemen involved in this incident may well have been under the impression that they faced a weapon, but this is not an isolated incident of armed police taking life with very little comeback.
  9. If the law and once again i'm being niave, can clear two policemen making life or death decisions facing a bloke with a blue carrier bag, would it not help our guys in the same way, who ARE facing people with guns. Or is this the double standards the thread is alluding to?
  10. I agree its double standards, I have taken a few police forces through some range details in my past, I have seen first hand what they want to do when confronted and at that time, they DIDNT want to fire, policy was, talk them down...wear them down...last option was..only if you had a real threat did they blat off a couple of rounds and targets will fall when Lee Cleggs case he thought at that split second he or members of his brick were in danger and had a car come at them. Nobody in this thread or indeed anybody who has done some mileage on patrol in NI can argue that fact...decision..action...consequence....

    In the case of the the two guys who opened fire on the guy with the bag (aka table leg)..SOP wasnt followed...weapons were made ready at pointed at said man with table leg and they both fired for some strange reason...anybody know why they did that?..Im sure they knew.... was it an ND? 1 round is an ND...5-10 rounds is a contact...curious to know views on this the end of the day...Lee Clegg was shafted...SOMEONE had to be at fault...and he did time behind bars that he shouldnt have done..I would argue that anyone replying here..given that situation..would have doine the same thing..I would have!!
  11. Clegg was shafted, he took the rap for the system.
    Good the the two bobies have been cleared.
  12. Eh? I suppose spending 6 years of you life waiting to go to jail for doing your job is little come back. Clegg was found guilty as was Barry Aindow (I think that how you spell his name). I never seen anyone campaign for him! The Paras on the Glen Road were with a RUC Constable who told an interesting tale about what went on that evening. Stanley was not shot in the back, he was presenting a threat to the two officers. Try researching a bit and not relying on the papers to give the whole story. Think about this ruling the next time you pop an insurgent in Iraq too, as the law of self defence is quite an important one for soldiers too.

  13. The old old saying comes into play in these circumstances.

    "I would rather be tried by twelve than carried by six".

    Just happy that I never had to make that call when I was wandering around with a gun..
  14. Cutaway

    Cutaway LE Reviewer

    If the charge was murder then six years is not long. Six years of earning money, seeing your wife every day, watching your children grow.
    Mr Stanley will be a long time dead, six more years alive might have meant a lot to him.

    Were they waiting to go to prison ?
    I doubt it, but if so they knew they were guilty and deserved it.

    I didn't think that shooting unarmed people - regardless of how much of a 'scrote' they are - was considered part of the Met's job.

    I don't believe I said he was.

    I rely on the so-called newspapers for very little, they're much too partizan these days.
    But thanks for the tip - I'll have to research in future rather than just guessing or making unfounded comments as I usually do.

    Fully agree with that, however soldiers are - or should be - acting under a different set of ROE than policemen.

    Finally I don't believe for one minute that the officers involved started out with the intention to kill Mr Stanley, they had duff gen and were understandably nervous.
    There has been a stuff up somewhere along the line, and it should be revealed where so that it may be remedied.
  15. I have every sympathy for Mr Stanley and his family and I don't believe he is in any way 'responsible' for his own demise. I can fully understand his families desire to have 'justice' (whatever that is) done.

    The officers responded under the impression they were facing a man with a shotgun. He was challenged and I can only guess that, as I probably would, he did a 'WTF?' and in that unfortunate moment the officers felt they were under threat and opened fire.

    Are they supposed to wait until he lets one off at them? I certainly wouldn't want to be in that 'seconds count' position with someone elses life (or my own) depending on what I did next.

    At the end of the day only 3 people really know what happened and one of those is dead.

    Just heard some muppet on radio 2 saying why didn't they just shoot him in the leg? FFS some of these people watch too much hollywood!!

    I'm not convinced that the clegg comparison is valid in this case although I do agree he was shafted. Car driving away from you? whilst you might be exceedingly p1ssed off at what the scrote had done I really hope we don't get to the stage were joyriding deserves getting shot?