The court would be told the outline of what the information is and would then require a police officer to swear on oath that it is true to the best of their knowledge and belief. They should have asked about the source in general terms (reliable? used before? connection?) but they would not be told much more (and certainly would not usually be told the identity of any informant, let alone get any opportunity to question them)TAE said:
Police shoot man in forest gate
- Thread starter Rollem
- Start date
Oh no, mate.Yossarian said:Yeah, I'm sure she's just in her profession to get her hands on some of the fabulous riches of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four...
Legal Aid fund where possible, costs paid by the police in others.
According to C4 News, today the brothers complained that they were being beaten by the police after the police had shot one of them. The shot brother apparently said he was dragged down the stairs with his head hitting each step.detective-boy said:
C4 News had an ex-policeman in the studio, his reaction to the accusations was that the brother's version of events did not ring true. It would be illogical for british police to act like that.
Can you understand the frustration this pervasive attitude of 'the police would not behave unreasonably' causes in people who have experienced very unreasonable police behaviour themselves?
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
no. did you work for free, as a policeman? I bet you didn't. However, given that pierce has written extensively on civil liberties' subjects, and seeing as legal aid pay is peanuts compared to how much she could have made as a corporate lawyer, the insinuation that she's in it for the money isn't just nasty, it's also evidently wrong.detective-boy said:
lawyers, as you know, work in part on a 'taxi rank' basis; she HAS to take certain cases, as it's her turn.
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
really and what exactly would be the current legal aid fund rate for work and what's excluded... fucking total wanker of a statement and utterly dishonest...detective-boy said:
keep wriggling though ...
Well this ex-policeman thought their account appeared very truthful.TAE said:
There could be some justification for rough handling (even after the shot was fired) as the central point of the rapid entry tactic is speed and decisive action until it is clear everyone is located and secured, particularly as it is likely that the officers believed at that time that there may be explosives, etc. in the house.
There is also scope for some of the memory being mistaken or confused - human brains are not good at accurate recording of detail during a stressful incident. The "Shut the fuck up" type comments sound like adrenalin running high to me - not nice, but understandable as even the highest levels of training do not prevent adrenalin release and the psychological affects of potentially dangerous situations.
The specific assaults, if as recounted, would be difficult to justify but at some point the officers involved will be required to account for them.
One commentator (ex-military) mentioned that there would be a video of the operation which would prove exactly what happened. I am not so sure this would be the case. The technology certainly exists for such an operation to be audio and / or video recorded. It has been done on occasion but I am not sure it is standard practice. It is something which I think could be made standard practice if it is not, and that may be some of the learning from this incident.
Lawyers, as you clearly don't know, falll into two categories, solicitors and barristers. The "taxi rank" basis only applies to barristers (and it is pretty much bollocks anyway - when did you last see Michael Mansfield prosecuting for the Crown?).Red Jezza said:
Gareth Pierce is a solicitor. She attracts high-profile cases, even when the people concerned already have solicitors of their own, for whatever motivation. I have my own view. You have yours.
And, for what it is worth, yes, I did work for free as a police officer for three years when I was a Special Constable. I would be again now except for the fact that my work would bring conflicts of interest. What have you given to try to help improve the society we live in?
detective-boy said:
If there has been an injustice, especially one relating to false imprisonment, you want Gareth. Not least because she puts the fear of god into the other side.
And your remark about "thousands" is bizarre. Given what she does, thousands is chickenfeed. If she had gone into shipping or commercial law she could have made millions (and spent them on drugs to dull the pain, but that's another story and not hers).
Instead she spent decades on cases like the Birmingham 6 & Guildford 4 for very little money, not just very little in lawyer terms but very little in work terms. (I do hope you make tens of thousands at what you do, DB!)
The brother who was shot said it happened because all the officer saw before he pulled the trigger was an Asian with a beard. I think he has a point about dark-skinned people with big beards provoking reactions. The brothers’ beards really did play a signifiant part in this near-fatal farce. http://www.moneymad.org/poster_appeal.gif
I actually don't rate her. I know lots of "cause" solicitors and I have been very impressed by some, not so impressed by others. She is in the latter category - I see her as something of a one trick pony to be honest.laptop said:
Well, if that is the case the officer will be convicted of attempted murder. Not even the most optimistic defence brief could magic up an honestly-held belief in imminent assault based on a beard.socialist said:
detective-boy said:
Do you really think anyone will be charged let alone convicted? I mean after Stockwell there should have been charges. After the guy with the chair leg there should have been charges. After the guy in brixton with the lighter there should have been fucking charges
Being a firearms officer is deffo a hard job, but you take the rough with the smooth. If a cop knocks someone over in their car, the points go on his personal license (personal responsibility). how is it when someone gets gunned down there's no bloody charges?
I don't know. I don't know anything of the relevant facts (i.e. what was in the officer's mind when he fired the shot, or even how he came to fire the shot).DJ Bigga said:
Charges in relation to Stockwell are still being considered by the CPS (my view is that the standard CPS rule of only charging if there is a realistic chance of a conviction should be changed and in such cases of fatal force being used by the police there should be a public trial if there is a prima facie case (a far lower evidential standard).
Although they were not charged, the officers in relation the Harry Stanley case probably wish they had been - they have been constantly investigated by police / IPCC / Inquests ever since it happened. The CPS decided there was insufficient evidence.
The incident in Brixton was clearly different - there is no doubt he was armed with an imitation firearm and was threatening a member of the public. Even so there was a full investigation and the case was referred to the CPS. In this case I suspect even a prima facie case standard would not have led to a trial.
The "problem" with convictions is that the law of self-defence allows anyone who is able to convince a jury that they had an honestly-held belief of an imminent unlawful attack to be acquitted if the force they used was reasonable and necessary. This applies both ways (e.g. Kenneth Noye).
I believe that the simple fact is that the majority of uses of firearms by police officers just are not criminal offences. The lack of convictions could be because of this or because they system just lets them off. You seem to believe the latter (do you agree that ANY fatal use of force by the police was lawful?), I believe the answer is that it is in the middle somewhere, far closer to the lack of convictions being because they are mostly not criminal offences.
hipipol
Peckham Wry
Adrenelil Defence
If I shoot omeone, well we all know I am the agressor
Filth do it, well they were "only following orders", and got a bit hyped up
Cant recall that many Irish peeps being shot or convicted without REAL reason can you?
Seems fuck all has been learned for the Menezies murder
Thats what that was but there'll be no probs there eh?
Now either the cops carrying weapons are cdool or they aint, eh?
Remeber the cop wholeft his weapon propped against a pillar while he had a piss on Bishopsgate?
Cops are either just like the rest of us, or they are somehow better
They aint better they are just Joe Blogss with weapons and some kind os "SAS wannabe" dream
Personally i feel some degree of sympathy for "Dave" my local - another intiatrive from the top like - but really going just capping peeps, sounds more Yardee the Bobee - if you know what I mean like
Dec boy - your total, hes one of us therfir cool, mwell thats the prob aint aint it?
Recall the cop in Wimbledon who jumped onto some poor cunts botton and popped five shots into him cos he "thought he posed a danger"?
Scot free the murdering peice of shite
Look, put on the uniform somwhere you are seen as being above the rest of us stupid venal, criminally inclined non cops
I've seem to much arbitary shit from cops to have any trust, well unless you are rich, then they rush to lick arse, alsways the same, always will be
Fuck off you snivelling appologist shit bag
If I shoot omeone, well we all know I am the agressor
Filth do it, well they were "only following orders", and got a bit hyped up
Cant recall that many Irish peeps being shot or convicted without REAL reason can you?
Seems fuck all has been learned for the Menezies murder
Thats what that was but there'll be no probs there eh?
Now either the cops carrying weapons are cdool or they aint, eh?
Remeber the cop wholeft his weapon propped against a pillar while he had a piss on Bishopsgate?
Cops are either just like the rest of us, or they are somehow better
They aint better they are just Joe Blogss with weapons and some kind os "SAS wannabe" dream
Personally i feel some degree of sympathy for "Dave" my local - another intiatrive from the top like - but really going just capping peeps, sounds more Yardee the Bobee - if you know what I mean like
Dec boy - your total, hes one of us therfir cool, mwell thats the prob aint aint it?
Recall the cop in Wimbledon who jumped onto some poor cunts botton and popped five shots into him cos he "thought he posed a danger"?
Scot free the murdering peice of shite
Look, put on the uniform somwhere you are seen as being above the rest of us stupid venal, criminally inclined non cops
I've seem to much arbitary shit from cops to have any trust, well unless you are rich, then they rush to lick arse, alsways the same, always will be
Fuck off you snivelling appologist shit bag
hipipol
Peckham Wry
Adreneliln Defence
If I shoot omeone, well we all know I am the agressor
Filth do it, well they were "only following orders", and got a bit hyped up
Cant recall that many Irish peeps being shot or convicted without REAL reason can you?
Seems fuck all has been learned for the Menezies murder
Thats what that was but there'll be no probs there eh?
Now either the cops carrying weapons are cool or they aint, eh?
Remeber the cop who left his weapon propped against a pillar while he had a piss on Bishopsgate?
Cops are either just like the rest of us, or they are somehow better
They aint better they are just Joe Blogss with weapons and some kind os "SAS wannabe" dream
Personally i feel some degree of sympathy for "Dave" my local - another intiatrive from the top like - but really going just capping peeps, sounds more Yardee the Bobee - if you know what I mean like
Dec boy - your total, hes one of us therfior cool, well thats the prob aint aint it?
Recall the cop in Wimbledon who jumped onto some poor cunts botton and popped five shots into him cos he "thought he posed a danger"?
Scot free the murdering peice of shite
Look, put on the uniform somwhere you are seen as being above the rest of us stupid venal, criminally inclined non cops
I've seem to much arbitary shit from cops to have any trust, well unless you are rich, then they rush to lick arse, alsways the same, always will be
Fuck off you snivelling appologist shit bag
If I shoot omeone, well we all know I am the agressor
Filth do it, well they were "only following orders", and got a bit hyped up
Cant recall that many Irish peeps being shot or convicted without REAL reason can you?
Seems fuck all has been learned for the Menezies murder
Thats what that was but there'll be no probs there eh?
Now either the cops carrying weapons are cool or they aint, eh?
Remeber the cop who left his weapon propped against a pillar while he had a piss on Bishopsgate?
Cops are either just like the rest of us, or they are somehow better
They aint better they are just Joe Blogss with weapons and some kind os "SAS wannabe" dream
Personally i feel some degree of sympathy for "Dave" my local - another intiatrive from the top like - but really going just capping peeps, sounds more Yardee the Bobee - if you know what I mean like
Dec boy - your total, hes one of us therfior cool, well thats the prob aint aint it?
Recall the cop in Wimbledon who jumped onto some poor cunts botton and popped five shots into him cos he "thought he posed a danger"?
Scot free the murdering peice of shite
Look, put on the uniform somwhere you are seen as being above the rest of us stupid venal, criminally inclined non cops
I've seem to much arbitary shit from cops to have any trust, well unless you are rich, then they rush to lick arse, alsways the same, always will be
Fuck off you snivelling appologist shit bag
d-b,
I think one of the problems with the "honestly held belief" defence, as it relates to the police in these circumstances (Forest gate and Stockwell), is that it is inevitable that the cop-on-the-ground will have an "honestly held belief" that mortal attack is imminent - they are told by their superiors of the imminent threat.
Given what they are told before an operation, how could they not hold an honest belief in the case of Stockwell and Forest Gate.
"Right lads, now when you go in, you've got to expect each one of these bastards to be armed to the teeth with guns, bombs, chemicals, poisons and the rest, AND you'd better expect them to be ready to use them immediately."
Or......
(In relation to someone suspected of carrying a bomb.)
"The suspect is heading for the tube station. The suspect MUST be stopped from entering the station, at all cost".
I can see the court transcripts:
"Yes your honour, I was utterly convinced that the man was about to detonate a bomb on the tube, so I had to put 8 bullets through his brain."
Reasonable? Yes.
"Yes your honour, I deeply believed that as he came down the stairs, he was armed to the teeth with guns, bombs, chemicals, poisons and the rest, AND was about to use them immediately."
Reasonable? Yes.
Under the circumstances, of course it's "reasonable".
Essentially, this means that (under these circumstances), the cop-on-the-ground has a Get out of jail free card.
So then we turn our attention upwards through the chain of command to try and identify the person(s) who briefed the officers and then onto who briefed them and then up to who briefed them and so on. Unfortunately, by that time, we're back into the domain of "intelligence", "sources", "credibility", etc. And even if the police service have doubts about the veracity of the intelligence, some politician (briefed by MI5), can order a raid to take place on the "honestly held belief" that the risk was too great to not act.
And so on, ad-infinitum.
Everybody, therefore, gets a Get out of jail free card.
I think this is one of the things peeps here are reacting to. There is scepticism that anyone will be charged, let alone convicted, under these circumstances. And that means that there is effectively carte blanche to repeat the scenario again and again and again - without any convictions.
It seems like it's happened (at least) twice now. How many times would be acceptable before changes were made? 10 dead innocents? 20? 100? 1,000?
I appreciate that cops need to do their jobs, but when innocent people are being shot by the police and nobody is being convicted for it, it is inevitable that peeps are going to be concerned and to question what mechanisms are in place to prevent such disasters.
I can see a scenario where a senior officer tells a junior officer: "This is a top-secret operation son. Nobody but NOBODY must hear what I'm about to tell you. Despite what you may have heard about mythology and despite what you may think about reality and fantasy, the fact is that we believe we have trapped a real live Medusa in that there flat and despite what you may think, this ain't no joke. Be aware that Medusa's can kill - instantly. Should it lunge at you, just ONE of the deadly snakes could kill instantly. Be very careful and beware of the LUNGE.
So.....In go the cops.
NOW! Some poor bastard is in his living room having a wee dance around the room to Bob Marley wailing about luv-n-stuff - a' shaking his dreadlocks like crazy....
BLAM! BLAM! Oh dear
.
"Yes, your honour, I was convinced beyond any doubt that this creature was about to strike me down with a dozen deadly snakebites - it was horrifying - there was nothing else I could do."
Reasonable? Of course.
And the superior who gave the instructions? Well, he was told the same story by MI5 and had an "honestly held belief" in its veracity.
And MI5, although they can't disclose their sources, will tell you that they had credible intelligence, and therefore an "honestly held belief", that Medusa was alive and well and holed up in Brixton.
Where does it end?
Woof
I think one of the problems with the "honestly held belief" defence, as it relates to the police in these circumstances (Forest gate and Stockwell), is that it is inevitable that the cop-on-the-ground will have an "honestly held belief" that mortal attack is imminent - they are told by their superiors of the imminent threat.
Given what they are told before an operation, how could they not hold an honest belief in the case of Stockwell and Forest Gate.
"Right lads, now when you go in, you've got to expect each one of these bastards to be armed to the teeth with guns, bombs, chemicals, poisons and the rest, AND you'd better expect them to be ready to use them immediately."
Or......
(In relation to someone suspected of carrying a bomb.)
"The suspect is heading for the tube station. The suspect MUST be stopped from entering the station, at all cost".
I can see the court transcripts:
"Yes your honour, I was utterly convinced that the man was about to detonate a bomb on the tube, so I had to put 8 bullets through his brain."
Reasonable? Yes.
"Yes your honour, I deeply believed that as he came down the stairs, he was armed to the teeth with guns, bombs, chemicals, poisons and the rest, AND was about to use them immediately."
Reasonable? Yes.
Under the circumstances, of course it's "reasonable".
Essentially, this means that (under these circumstances), the cop-on-the-ground has a Get out of jail free card.
So then we turn our attention upwards through the chain of command to try and identify the person(s) who briefed the officers and then onto who briefed them and then up to who briefed them and so on. Unfortunately, by that time, we're back into the domain of "intelligence", "sources", "credibility", etc. And even if the police service have doubts about the veracity of the intelligence, some politician (briefed by MI5), can order a raid to take place on the "honestly held belief" that the risk was too great to not act.
And so on, ad-infinitum.
Everybody, therefore, gets a Get out of jail free card.
I think this is one of the things peeps here are reacting to. There is scepticism that anyone will be charged, let alone convicted, under these circumstances. And that means that there is effectively carte blanche to repeat the scenario again and again and again - without any convictions.
It seems like it's happened (at least) twice now. How many times would be acceptable before changes were made? 10 dead innocents? 20? 100? 1,000?
I appreciate that cops need to do their jobs, but when innocent people are being shot by the police and nobody is being convicted for it, it is inevitable that peeps are going to be concerned and to question what mechanisms are in place to prevent such disasters.
I can see a scenario where a senior officer tells a junior officer: "This is a top-secret operation son. Nobody but NOBODY must hear what I'm about to tell you. Despite what you may have heard about mythology and despite what you may think about reality and fantasy, the fact is that we believe we have trapped a real live Medusa in that there flat and despite what you may think, this ain't no joke. Be aware that Medusa's can kill - instantly. Should it lunge at you, just ONE of the deadly snakes could kill instantly. Be very careful and beware of the LUNGE.
So.....In go the cops.
NOW! Some poor bastard is in his living room having a wee dance around the room to Bob Marley wailing about luv-n-stuff - a' shaking his dreadlocks like crazy....
BLAM! BLAM! Oh dear
."Yes, your honour, I was convinced beyond any doubt that this creature was about to strike me down with a dozen deadly snakebites - it was horrifying - there was nothing else I could do."
Reasonable? Of course.
And the superior who gave the instructions? Well, he was told the same story by MI5 and had an "honestly held belief" in its veracity.
And MI5, although they can't disclose their sources, will tell you that they had credible intelligence, and therefore an "honestly held belief", that Medusa was alive and well and holed up in Brixton.
Where does it end?
Woof
Here's my tuppence...
I don't know who to believe in all of this. However, I do believe that at least the police officer in charge of that raid and the officer who's firearm was discharged have a lot of answering to do.
I don't like a lot of the anti police sentiment on this thread. Some people are speaking as if the police couldn't give two monkeys who they shoot. Shooting innocent people does not earn anyone a promotion. It leads to a very insecure future, demotion or the sack.
I have the feeling that the most senior police officer involved in that raid, didn't exactly have the Metropolitan police's best officers on that raid. I heard from one source, the police where blaming new gloves that had been issued - If that's the case, then someone needs to be held to account for allowing a situation where new equipment was being used without being properly trial tested.
I don't know who to believe in all of this. However, I do believe that at least the police officer in charge of that raid and the officer who's firearm was discharged have a lot of answering to do.
I don't like a lot of the anti police sentiment on this thread. Some people are speaking as if the police couldn't give two monkeys who they shoot. Shooting innocent people does not earn anyone a promotion. It leads to a very insecure future, demotion or the sack.
I have the feeling that the most senior police officer involved in that raid, didn't exactly have the Metropolitan police's best officers on that raid. I heard from one source, the police where blaming new gloves that had been issued - If that's the case, then someone needs to be held to account for allowing a situation where new equipment was being used without being properly trial tested.
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
there was an old irish joke which went thus during the IRA years...
knock knock
whose there?
bang bang bang bang bang....
the police...
have things really changed...
knock knock
whose there?
bang bang bang bang bang....
the police...
have things really changed...
TonkaToy said:
Can people not be critical of police actions without being anti-police? I really think that the people who gave the orders should at least be held to account. Why were the senior officers in charge not even sacked after the Stockwell murder?
Also, they must have known something about these lads were before going in. One of them had applied to be a community police officer, which I would imagine calls for some vetting. I wonder what will happen to that application now - will he still want/be able to join the police after this experience?
ZAMB said:
Of course. I just was critical of the police.
Due process. If I remember correctly, the police complaints report isn't even out yet. Once it's out and once we find it points the fingers of blame AND IF heads don't roll, then I'll sing in chorus with you.
So what if one of them had applied to be a community police officer? None of us know whether such an application would have even got to a vetting stage. Besides, any such application wouldn't make a shred of difference to any police operations.
It doesn't become any less like bollocks just because you repeat it you know.hipipol said:
Entertaining though your court transcripts are, they would NOT amount to a defence.Jessiedog said:
As I have said a dozen times, it is NOT enough to say you were ordered to shoot someone - that order CANNOT be lawfully given.
It is NOT enough to say "Well I was told such and such at the briefing", although that may be PART of the honestly held belief.
That is noe of the aspects which the IPCC, the CPS and the Courts will be looking closely at. This did used to be overlooked, but the police do learn from experience (slowly, and I know no-one believes that they do at all) and the investigation and proceedings which followed the killing of James Ashley in Hastings in 1988 established beyond doubt that those responsible for briefings and directions would be hald accountable for what they told the officers who they sent out on operations.
It is fairly common practice for briefings to be recorded (audio usually, but I have known them be video recorded) to ensure there is no mistake over what was said. Written notes are alwasy kept. A competent briefing would ensure that it was entirely accurate in the information provided.
There is no get out of jail free card for either the armed officer (who must provide specific grounds for why THEY decided to use potentially fatal force, of which what they were briefed can only ever be part) or those managing the operation.
The point that was being made was that, because of the information they had, the officers were deployed in CBRN protective suits. It wasn't that the gloves were defective or particularly dangerous in any way, it's just that the simple fact of wearing (any) glove makes the finger less sensitive and reduces the fine trigger control.TonkaToy said:
These suits have not been issued to the police for very long at all. If there is shown to be an issue here (or, even if there is not, now it has been raised as even being possible) it is likely that it will be some of the learning done by the organisation.
Similar threads
