Tulster218
Well-Known Member
Isn't this all sub judice now?
Well at least we know what to expect later on.Certainly wouldn't get anonymity. And unconditional bail, for murder?
Isn't this all sub judice now?
Isn't this all sub judice now?
Those cops are telling on themselves. They can't trust themselves not to let their conscious or subconscious racist biases dictate their actions. They can clearly easily envisage a situation where they might adopt a shoot first, ask questions later approach when stopping a black suspect.Once again armed cops threaten to hand back their firearms authorisations in protest at one of them being charged with murder Dozens of Met officers refuse armed patrols after colleague’s murder charge
Let them. Sure the streets would be safer
Discussing the nature of murder etc does not create a substantial risk that the course of justice in this case would be seriously impeded or prejudiced.
Agree with this - where is the enquiry into what led up to the shooting? I can sort of see why frearms officers don't feel supported if they're put into shit situations with bad information as in Jean Charles de Menezes - but if the police don't even stop for reflection and just move on.Indeed. It‘ll more likely be a kind of show case: See, we charged him with murder and did the trial and he got off. End of story, let’s move on.
I see the firearms officers want more legal support.Difficult to see what else can be done short of giving them the 'license to kill' that was mentioned upthread.Agree with this - where is the enquiry into what led up to the shooting? I can sort of see why frearms officers don't feel supported if they're put into shit situations with bad information as in Jean Charles de Menezes - but if the police don't even stop for reflection and just move on.
The thing is they always act like this when any sort of sanction against one of them is proposed. It is against any form of accountability not for being given better informationAgree with this - where is the enquiry into what led up to the shooting? I can sort of see why frearms officers don't feel supported if they're put into shit situations with bad information as in Jean Charles de Menezes - but if the police don't even stop for reflection and just move on.
They get a fuckton of legal support and institutional backing alreadyI see the firearms officers want more legal support.Difficult to see what else can be done short of giving them the 'license to kill' that was mentioned upthread.
Officer to be charged with murder.
Good news - but we've been down this road so often without it ending in any sort of justice
Isn't this all sub judice now?
As long as nobody says, 'the copper is definitely guilty' or anything I think we're good.
Coppers having a public strop about one of their own being charged with murder, that might be heading towards contempt of court. You'd think they of all people would understand about not prejudicing ongoing criminal proceedings.
Agreed -the optics of that are surely detrimental to the fairness of any trial.As a part of the Executive it should be unacceptable.
Soz was commenting on what Frank said.
Discussing the nature of murder etc does not create a substantial risk that the course of justice in this case would be seriously impeded or prejudiced.
As if anyone here gave a f*ck about that anyway.
No - but I think an officer pumped with adrenaline is hardly going to make a dispassionate decision - any more than if they were full of skunk or amphetamines.Do you think some of these police officers are killing just for the adrenaline buzz
What happens when the Home Secretary, who is also a King's Counsel and a former Attorney General, tries to intervene politically in ongoing criminal proceedings, presumably in an attempt to try and ensure that they cannot proceed fairly?:
Is Suella Braverman in contempt of court over murder case comments?
In the eyes of every lawyer I’ve spoken to, Suella Braverman has overstepped the mark
This editorial in the Guardian is spot on. Perhaps Mark Rowley should be given some more time but don't think he's up to reforming the Met and looks like it needs to be restructured.
The Guardian view on armed police: there should be no culture of impunity | Editorial
Editorial: By throwing doubt on the CPS’s decision to charge an officer, ministers and Sir Mark Rowley risk weakening their own reformswww.theguardian.com
Mission almost accomplished?:
Decision to charge officer with Chris Kaba murder ‘should be reviewed’
What happens when the Home Secretary, who is also a King's Counsel and a former Attorney General, tries to intervene politically in ongoing criminal proceedings, presumably in an attempt to try and ensure that they cannot proceed fairly?:
Is Suella Braverman in contempt of court over murder case comments?
In the eyes of every lawyer I’ve spoken to, Suella Braverman has overstepped the mark
"The judge in the Chris Kaba murder case has issued a stern Contempt of Court warning over public comments made since a police officer was charged over the fatal shooting ..."
I don't think having his name out there makes much of a difference. He is still going through the same process as Martyn Blake as he was as Mr X.The anonymity order preventing the naming of the Metropolitan Police firearms officer charged with the murder of the Late Chris Kaba has now been lifted - a week later than previously announced - and he can now be named as Martyn Blake, who has pladed not guilty to Mr Kaba's murder.