If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
'Table leg' killing coppers arrested
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
Two police officers have been arrested on suspicion of murder, six years after they shot a man dead in east London.
Insp Neil Sharman and Pc Kevin Fagan were later released on bail by Surrey Police, who investigated the shooting of Harry Stanley in Hackney in 1999.
The two Met officers said they thought Mr Stanley was carrying a gun - in fact it was a table leg wrapped in a bag.
They were also arrested on suspicion of gross negligence, manslaughter and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and were said to be "very upset".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4603643.stm
Hope for justice, at last!
Shame they can't arrest the person who called the police in the first place as well- the one who saw a man with an Irish accent and a wooden table leg sticking out of a bag having a pint in a pub, and reached the "logical" conclusion that he must be an Irish "terrorist" carrying a sawed-off gun. :rolleyes:
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
Let's hope so and hope both the coppers not only get a full apology, but a substantial amount of compensation for the shit they've had to put up with over the last few years.
I fully expect them to be acquitted, because that is what always happens when something involves police officers. It doesn't matter if they do 159mph on a motorway, if they rape a drunk young woman whilst on duty, kill 96 people because of criminal negligence, or shoot an unarmed man, they always get away with it.
I think thy're as guilty as the ones who shot the unarmed naked man about six years ago, but they didn't get convicted either, so I doubt that these two will.
We don't believe in 'shoot first, ask questions later' tactics in this country. At the very least the coppers behaved in a completely unprofessional way that resulted in the death of an innocent and unarmed man. A sad 'trigger happy' case.
It now appears that they were trying to pervert the course of justice as well (probably because they know they fucked up big time, and tried to cover their actions).
Better to be judged by twelve good men than carried by six.
No, I think it's accurate, not unfair.
Or put it another way and he was armed with a shotgun, someone in the pub suspected he was armed, but didn't ring the police in case it was a chair leg and he then went and shot his ex-wife dead.
It was a combination of circumstances, the peelers were in fear for their lives (and no-one who hasn't had a weapon pointed at them should second-guess them) and fired. And now society hangs them out to dry...
To be honest at times I don't think the British public are worth defending.
I find it very strange how people are always so willing to accept that police officers always tell the truth, are never racist, misogynist or bigoted, and will always do their job to 100% of their ability. They are people like any other, and if they have killed this man for no good reason then they deserve to be hanged out to dry just as any other person would be.
A blue uniform doesn't stop someone from being a murderer, or being so grossly incompetent that it is manslaughter.
We ask people to risk their lives on our behalf, we have to accept that at times, whatever their training, mistakes will made. its only fair that we don't then sacrifice them unless its a case of gross negligence.
I think that is a fair comment, tbh, mistakes do happen. That's not in question.
What is in question is whether this was a mistake, and whether it was a serious enough mistake to deserve punishment. The bar of a negligent mistake should be at the same level as for a civilian, if not higher- sikply because they are doing a job doesn't mean that they should be immune to prosecution if they fuck up.
And if they have lied during the course of the investigation, then they should be (figuratively) strung up for it.
The flip side of your argument about "funerals" is, of course, how that an innocent man has been killed, leaving a wife and two children to cope by themselves. A family has been destroyed for no reason, and that should never ever be forgotten.
True enough.
To be fair to the murdering bastards, they drill over and over and over again how to shoot people, so much so that itbecomes automatic no matter the circumstances. They got the right stimulus - pissed up paddy with furniture - and they shot him, as they are trained to do.
Now, if they trained over and over checking for table legs, we might have had a different story.
The police naturally want total immunity from prosecution, for almost everything they do is illegal if a normal citizen does it. Tough, they should be as they used to be, citizens in uniform.
This time the guy was shot and he was carrying a table leg. So these two policemen who were, essentially, doing their job, could go to jail. Then what happens when the next two policemen have a judgement call to make, and the guy pulls out a shotgun and starts blasting away?
That's progress for liberty then is it?
This man wasn't a criminal. He was entirely innocent. What is your alternative, just let the police cap anyone they fancy without checking up on them?
Well that's the whole point isn't it? They didn't do their job. they fucked up and someone is dead who shouldn't be. BTW, being a police officer is an entirely voluntary act, they can leave at any time.
They are paid to take the risk. They can leave whenever they like. It's more important that innocent people aren't killed than coppers feel safe about shooting people.
If an "innocent" person is doing a decidly stupid thing, then they have chosen to take that risk, in my opinion. Warnings would have been given. You're talking a lot about choosing to be a copper, well, this person chose to wave a table leg around in front of people with loaded weapons. His choice.
Why no, of course the police should take all the time in the world in considering the potential leathality of what they are presented with, whilst the criminals take pot-shots at them.
See that's the thing, I don't think that they did fuck up.
So in your opinion all the police should give up their jobs? That's a super idea, you've clearly thought that one through.
Like walking around with a bit of wood? No more snooker for me then. What you are advocating is doing whatever the police tell you to, just because it's the police who are telling you to do it. Have you any idea how dangerous that mentality is?
WTF?
Glad you agree. No crime is commited unless someone is hurt. It's the golden rule of the old common law.
You are being sarcastic, but that's exactly what I think.
That's no surprise.
But that is the whole point of the blooming investigation :banghead:
If the man was doing a "stupid" thing, and refused to heed a warning to "drop the weapon", then yeah, the police cocked up but it's not really their fault. Or not enough to jail them, anyway.
Witnesses suspect that he wasn't waving the thing around in a threatening way, and that the police fired anyway. The police then lied about doing this. I think that is more than enough reason to find out who is telling the truth.
Why are you arguing that the "respect" for a bloke in a blue uniform is more important than the life of an innocent man? Why are you arguing that "these trials" are damaging, anyway: if someone is not doing his job properly, he should be stopped from doing his job. Should we just let coppers get away with anything they want, simply so that "criminals" are unable to "take advantage"?
If the police are telling the truth then they should be left to do their job. It was a regrettable error, but these things happen. If they are not telling the truth then they should be severely punished, because the responsibility to be honest is the number one requirement in a job such as policing.
But hey, he was only some pissed feenian fuck, what does it matter? Lets not bother finding out what happened, and learning from it, and making sure those who are unfit to do the job are rooted out, lets just make sure those pesky "criminals" get shot next time, eh?
Do you think Shipman should have been tried for murder? After all, "these trials" end up "damaging respect" for the healthcare profession!
Well I did only say that I dislike them, it's still going ahead, so no need to worry or bang your head against things.
Then we shall see.
I'm not, I'm saying that the man was possibly not entirely "innocent" here.
Essentially the problem is when the reaction against a police person doing their job properly is the same as someone not doing their job properly. As in, we get an investigation and trial every time someone gets shot by a copper. Kinda defeats the point.
Fair enough then.
I'll not address that because the first paragraph was just rambling and the second is an entirely disconnected argument popped in to score a few emotive points.
Did he commit an offence?
No.
Therefore he is innocent.
I don't think it does, really, it's an important point of governance. If something goes wriong it should be investigated.
It wouldn't be "every time someone gets shot", it never has been. When they shoot an unarmed man it should be investigated, because its a balls-up.
Obviously you have faith in the police to do their job properly without any form of public scrutiny, but I have heard too much- on the record and off- to have any such faith.
:eek2:
Was the leg pissed as well? I think we should be told. Perhaps the leg was in possesion of a dangerous Irishman and it was the only way....
I know where this comes from, a failure to understand what the polices job is (or is supposed to be) - they are supposed to take evidence and present stuff to a court to decide on. They just bring cases to the attention of the judicial system, they don't decide guilt or innocence.
In practical terms so many people think that if the police have pointed someone out they must be guilty of something that they do.
Inquest No 1 - open verdict - quashed on appeal
Inquest No 2 - unlawful killing - quashed on appeal.
At best it seems that the two officers seem to have a good case for saying there is 'reasonable doubt' in their case and at worse a cynic could say that further investigations will continue until the Government gets the results it wants and two good men end up in jail.
No possibility of the copper lying because he either fucked up, failed to give warnings and follow procedure, or simply was a tad too trigger happy for everyone's liking then?
And let's remember that after having had their conviction quashed they have been arrested and charged on new forensic evidence.
Surely there are grounds for these men to stand trial??!!