The IPCC recommended a review in 2005 and it doesn't seem to have taken place. The Met are basically a law unto themselves and desperately in need of huge structural reform.
The IPCC recommended a review in 2005 and it doesn't seem to have taken place. The Met are basically a lawbunto themselves and desperately in need of hige structural reform.
Met Police admits failing to review Duggan stop tactic
The Metropolitan Police says it was "wrong" not to formally review its use of the "hard stop" tactic six years before it was used in the Mark Duggan shooting.www.bbc.co.uk
No, where did you get that from?!
juries are generally instructed to listen to the evidence and make decisions based on that. and they did hear evidence about the operational tactics of the night (see for example Police marksman who gunned down Chris Kaba was 'calm and collected'). now, i know you like to set yourself up as a legal expert apparently based on having done jury service, but the tactics of the night feed quite clearly into a) the context of the incident and b) the jury's consideration of the legality of the action blake took and you don't need to have sat with 11 other good people and true to know that.
I know the feeling
Seriously don't know what the point of your posts here and on the other thread is. Seems as usual you're just looking for some kind of argument rather than actually discussing anything.
Again - you obviously haven't read any of my posts. I said it was pretty clear he wouldn't get convicted of murder right when the trial started. Seems pretty clear the intention of charging him with murder was to limit any actual probing of what happened and you seem more than happy to go along with that.
my error it should read that the Mayor is the equivalent of the Police and Crime Commissioners be it his title is is the occupant of the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) except for the city of London police. A sort of strange job really as on certain matters he works with the home sec . I think appointing the Police commissioner for the Met it’s the Home Sec with an input from the Mayor.
If you're referring to this:
Ed is an abbreviation of the poster's name
I don't think that this has ever been argued in a case of a shooting.
So, in other words, the intention does not matter in the case of someone shooting someone. A police officer who shoots someone, thereby causing their death, can only be charged with murder? They cannot be charge with manslaughter?
Again, not what I said. But surely you can see that by letting the jury make the decision it means less of a problem for the CPS.
maybe you do. so too i imagine do the cps who brought the prosecution. you seem rather to be basing your argument on a jury infallibility which perhaps they don't merit - two obvious perversities that leap to mind are the o.j. simpson trial and the cops accused in the rodney king case.
Maybe - but pretty sure they do it as a way of making it seem more personal and being a bit of a bully which is their main reason for hanging around here.
Does the direction of the judge make sense?
Not sure that's true, think the judge wouldn't offer manslaughter as shooting a gun at someone was interrupted as knowing there was a strong likelihood of them being killed. Manslaughter is as unlawful as murder isn't it?
