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
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
So the new evidence found has to impact on the two previous inquiries, does it not?
Especially as inquest one was found unsafe, and inquest two was only quashed due to lack of evidence. It does indicate that, with new evidence, inquest two could be upheld.
And one could also be a cynic and say inquest two was only quashed because of the illegal strikes held by so19.
There seems to be enough reasonable doubt that they shouldn't stand trial. Or are police (together with soldiers) the only people that doesn't apply too.
And whilst the police aren't entitled to do anything they like, it seems wrong to put them on trial for murder when at the end of the day they are protecting the public by putting themselves in a situation which could lead to their death.
The law itself is just PR of course, no one is presumed innocent, so why should the "police" be?
Voluntary choice and therefore they are responsible for all their actions.
SO19's perfectly legal refusal to carry arms was in November and the second inquest verdict was quashed in May so I'd guess the two were unrelated.
But the fact that the shooting was in 1999 and despite two enquiries no definitive judgement has been reached seems to me that any prosecution would be on shajy evidence (but hey that doesn't matter, why should armed policemen acting on our behalf be given any benefit of the doubt - after all they're just 'murdering bastards')
How does that work?
Why?
Doctors protect people, and when they fuck up they get done for manslaughter.
The new evidence should be heard in a court of law. I would note that the inquests were not criminal, and they should have been.
The "police" don't do anything "on our behalf". Sheesh. If you think the police are peace loving individuals who recquire anyone's permission to act you are a moron.
And remember that this latest arrest is in the light of new evidence. Or should we just ignore any new findings that might incriminate them, because they're coppers? It certainly wouldn't apply to you or me.
Not the same thing unless they're protecting people whilst the nurses are shooting at them. But how many Doctors are prosecuted except for gross negligence? And if a Doctor has a split second to make a decision and makes the wrong call in my opinion he should not face prosecution.
It is possible to be gross negiglent, even in a firearms situation.
Why don't we wait for the trial to come up and for the evidence to be heard eh?
Even if it is a grossly negligent mistake? I know of at least one anaesthatist who made a gross error in a "split second" judgement and was jailed for manslaughter. Fair enough to me, I think.
But nobody is saying that these coppers should be jailed if there is nothing for them to be jailed for. I am saying that they should be tried for manslaughter (I don't think murder would ever stick), and it should be down to a jury to decide.
If there's no case to answer they will be acquitted. But that case should be heard. Why do you disagree?
And yes the police can overreact http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/news/video/taser_video3a.html (warning no blood, but may be distressful for some as it has someone being tasered, which is bloody painful)
Yes it is. The law is quite clear on the matter: making a grossly negligent error of judgement is gross negligence. Hence the anaesthatist who was jailed for ballsing up a split-second judgement so badly that it was gross negligence.
If the gross negligence directly leads to death it is manslaughter.
Why do you not think the case, and the new evidence, should be heard in a court of law, where the police officers can be held accountable for their actions?
Things are rarely as black and white as that, as I am sure that you would agree.
In this case, I am not talking about innocence in the form of not having commited an offence, but rather innocence in the sense of there must have been some suspicion in place for the armed police to be there at all, let alone to shoot.
So unless your belief is that the police simply happened to fancy shooting someone then my point is that the guy must have been doing something to make the police suspect that the deadly force was necessary. Ergo, he holds some of the responsibility, whether legal or otherwise.
I suppose this is part of what we shall see, in another trial.
I don't know the case, but did he make a mistake or was he forced to make a call - they are different.
if the man had dropped his table leg and was putting his hands up and they shot him that's gross negligence.
If he 'seemed' to amke a threatening move (and bearing in mind it doesn't have to in the cold light of day to be threatening) they have to make a call. They made the wrong one - but i don't think they should be sacrifieced for it.
Aren't they?
Because after a while it becomes harrasment - it looks like there being hounded until someone gets the 'right' decision. And because unless you've been in a situation like that you cannot judge their actions.
It sounds to me as if you don't want these men to stand trial because you believe they have done no wrong- despite not knowing what the new evidence might be- and in any case coppers should be given more license to do as they please without fear of reprisal.
He was forced to make a call during a heart stoppage, and he put too much of the wrong drug into the man.
Which is what some witnesses claim happened.
The pressure of the situation is taken into account, but pressure is not a defence for a grossly bad decision.
Actions can be objectively judged. In a court case, expert witnesses will testify on both sides.
It isn't harrassment because there has never been a criminal investigation, the two inquiries were held by coroners.
There should have been a criminal investigation long ago, and by now it would have been sorted.
At the moment any trial would be a 'political' one and why should the officers have to put up with the stress of that.
No, in too many cases like this they've reached wrong decisions which have had to be overturned (see Lee Clegg)
Who's politics?
Why do the Government care?
Clegg was an anomaly, although even then Clegg was hardly the poor innocent soldier doing his duty that the media presented him as. On balance Clegg was probably wrong, but it was much closer than the Army would ever have one believe.
The argument that they didnt know it was a weapon is foolish as these guys handle guns and see guns in their every day activities, if you cant tell a chair leg from a gun at 25 yards you clearly suck and are gonna get whats comming.
What Mickey Mouse idea is that? Its not a cowboy film - you shoot for the body not only to bring the target down, but because its the largest target and you increase your chance of hitting it. Unfortunately shooting to wound or shooting the suspects gun out of his hand only works if you're John Wayne.
If it in a carrier bag and its dark (as it was for this) I wouldn't like to bet my life it wasn't a sawn-off shotgun (and betting their lives were what these two officers would have been doing).
its never this simple but it has to be taken into account no matter what that thiis is a very difficult job
There is conflicting evidence - i.e. the coppers say the did and other witnesses say they didn't.
If it was in a bag how would you use it, anyway?
Eh? They killed him and he had done nothing wrong. Walking around with a gun in a bag isn't unlawful (it's illegal) and refusing to be bullied by strangers isn't either.
It isn't negligence. Even if he pulled a gun it's still murder, only with mitigating circumstances.
Which they could stop doing at any time. They didn't have to go out and face him, they chose to take money for doing so. Now they have got it all wrong - tough shit.
It'd have to be closed down- unless we revert to discussing kittens.
it's called conversation ...observation ...viewpoint ...exchange of ideas.
it's what humans do on a daily basis ...and now digitaly.
whats the point in newspapers or books J?
Bulltes dont throw anyone anywhere, you been watching too many swarchenegger movies, if I hang a pig carcass on a meat hook and blast it point blank with both barrells of a sawn off it wont even swing on the hook. If your in the forces im the queen of america.
A sawn off loaded with bird shot vs body armour is a joke, gammbling their lives is part of the job like motor sport jockeys boxing firemen armed forces.
This wasnt a sawn off it was a chair leg and thats the point, they sucked. How was the poor guy supposed to react? drop the chair leg and step away! Since when has that been anything but a joke? These police officers have to protect innocent members of the public not kill them, that takes precedence over all else other wise the job is pointless. The cops become as dangerous as the crooks.
a bad decision is a bit different to a judgement cal lwhich is effectively a gamble on your life or taking a shot
i say it should go to court so the facts can be heard, however he should be given leniancy because if the guy didnt listen to warnings to drop bag and get on floor and then shot his collegaue that he'd be responsible for his colleagues potential death
Some dumb ass cop orders me around when im innocent of any wrong is gonna have to shoot me too.
yeh i know but id rather get it cleared up with them i doing anmything wrong its called being civil if they have a go then say fuck you to them
Fair enough and if I was a peeler who thought that you were armed and were going to shoot me or one of my comrades I'd shoot you in a second. At the very least it would raise the planets average IQ.
First off,what,factually,is a "peeler" ? (I`d take a guess at an individual wearing a uniform with a shiny badge,and occasionally carrying a firearm)
Do those "rules of engagement" apply to all ? For example,if I left a pub carrying a table reg under my arm(and a "self defence" revolver under my jacket) and noticed a member of the "peeler species" fumbling in the boot of his "armed response" motor vehicle,should I shoot him in a second,blasting his "higher than average IQ(?)" brains over the pavement,because I thought he was armed and was going to shoot me ?
seeker