Police shoot man in forest gate

[Bob_the_lost]

From the BBC:

Let's be fair, the news of the world makes prison plannet look like a balanced and objective weighing of the facts.

 

[editor]

Let's be fair, the news of the world makes prison plannet look like a balanced and objective weighing of the facts.

Eh? The News of the World is a weekly bastion of cutting edge journalism compared to the wild yarns spun daily for the terminally gullible at prisonplanet.

 

[detective-boy]

do you have the right to physically resist unlawful arrest?

Yes. Any physical force used in an unlawful arrest would be an assault in itself and the law of self-defence would allow you to use such force as is reasonable and necessary to avert that assault.

But (and it is a big but) you would need to be very sure that you knew the arrest was "illegal". Just because you know you have not committed an offence does NOT mean that an arrest is illegal - powers of arrest are based on "reasonable grounds to suspect" an offence and that, obviously, can apply to someone who is entirely innocent as well as the guilty.

I would never recommend any sigicificant resistance due to the possibility of error - you risk digging yourself a huge hole. My advice would always be to smile sweety, cooperate fully and watch the £ signs going round for every minute you are held in custody, waiting for release without charge and subsequent civil case for unlawful arrest and detention.

 

[TAE]

I still think there should be an equal defence of "reasonable grounds to suspect" that the arrest was illegal.

 

[detective-boy]

Would it not be a defence for someone resisting the police if he/she had reasonable grounds to believe the police were acting unlawfully?

Probably not, though in terms of self-defence (but not protection of property) the "honestly-held belief" bit would apply and you could make an argument around that.

You would usually have to demonstrate that the act WAS illegal, not that you thought it was. You would also have to bear in mind that the Courts would be unlikely to cut you much slack - as a matter of public policy (one basis for precedent being set) they would be concerned to reduce resistance to lawful activity by the police as much as possible.

 

[detective-boy]

Yes lets wait for more facts but lawyer for the wounded man on C4 news says todat that he was in his pyjamas and shot by the police without warning.

Neither of which would make it unlawful per se, though it would make the officer's explanation more difficult.

 

[TAE]

The other problem I see is that the courts might well take the police's word over that of a suspect, so actually getting compensation after an illegal arrest might be rather difficult.

 

[detective-boy]

forget jazz DB proove to us the Old Trafford threat was real, does it not embarass you, I know it not your job but you so quic to speak up on everyother subject

If that washe extent of the evidence (and I have no knowledge of whether or not it was) then I do not think I would have encouraged counsel to base a suggestion as to possible target upon it. But there would be no need in law to provide any evidence of a target at all - I suspect it was simply put forward as a suggestion and over-reported by the media, far more strongly than it was relied upon in Court.

 

[detective-boy]

If it turns out, as seems likely, that the police have shot an innocent man, will the coppor be done for attempted murder or unlawful wounding?

Will the police protect their source? Was it 'intelligence' or was it a neighbour?

If they hadn't shot him, it may have been just another barely reported raid,

If there is evidence to support a charge it is likely to be attempted murder ... but that is a long, long way away.

There is no way that the source will be revealed. Regardless of any risk to the source themselves it would make nonsense of the promise that "all information will be treated in the strictest confidence" necessary to get people to provide information in the first place.

And I think it would have been reported regardless of the shooting - operations on that scale are NOT common at all. And I think the media would notice if one took place.

 

[liampreston]

Been reading the Sunday papers and on-line, trying to catch up on this. Briefly, does it not look as though, following tipoffs and survillance over a long period, the police in this case chose the right house but the wrong person? Is there any evidence now that Kahar was shot whilst he was half-way down the stairs at such an early hour?

 

[detective-boy]

Why didn't they just arrest him on the way to work rather than going in whilst he was still in the house, seems to make little sense considering how 'dangerous' the alleged materials apparently were.

And why force a no fly zone over the house AFTER they had raided it, surely if they were that concerned they'd have done it before hand?

There are always a number of tactics possible in an intervention. Each has pluses and minuses. They would have all been considered and a decision would have been made (and will have to be justified) that forced entry was the best available option.

Arresting someone in the street brings with it risks to other passers-by (particularly if they try and escape and a chase ensues). It still means you have to go back to the house at some time anyway ... and who else is there. And they may have advance warning by the time you get there. And if they have warning and do set something off (or even just barricade themselves in and start a seige), what about the safety of the neighbours.

The big advantage of a forced entry is surprise (especially at 4.30am, a time psycologists advise is the time people are likely to be at their least responsive). The big downside of a forced entry is the initial inevitable confusion.

I would not have liked to choose the tactics for this one - I think it was a bit of a no-win situation.

And the no fly zone is probably aimed at the media.

 

[detective-boy]

YOU WHAT?

Government: "Yeah we want to give them a fair trial ... BTW here are their previous convictions."

Not good. I note it was "government officials" not the police. Another problem to be overcome if there is ever a trial. And another reason why sub judice should be applied on arrest (as, theoretically it should be).

 

[detective-boy]

The other problem I see is that the courts might well take the police's word over that of a suspect, so actually getting compensation after an illegal arrest might be rather difficult.

The timing would make no difference. The lawfulness or otherwise of the arrest would always rely upon the account of the officers (i.e. why they did what they did and the powers they were relying upon).

 

[TAE]

Sorry I didn't understand that last post.

If an illegal arrest has been made I can sue the police but the courts will always take the account of the police officer in question as fact?

 

[JHE]

Been reading the Sunday papers and on-line, trying to catch up on this. Briefly, does it not look as though, following tipoffs and survillance over a long period, the police in this case chose the right house but the wrong person?

Could you expand on that, please? Who is it that you suspect the police were after or should have been after (at that address)?

Also, why do you say there was 'surveillance over a long period'? The impression given in the reports I've seen is that the story the police had been given was of an imminent atrocity, they found the story credible and so they decided they had to raid the house urgently, rather than conduct a prolonged spying operation.

 

[laptop]

So what were they looking for?

Starting with the paper most proud of its "security" links:

• Telegraph: Sarin
• Sunday Times: Cyanide (NotW too - obviously)
• Observer: dunno... biological attack? (No guarantee any of the authors know the difference between "chemical" and "biological")
• Sunday Mirror: Police were "carrying antidotes to anthrax, sarin and nerve gas." (Sarin is nerve gas, dummy.)
• Mail on Sunday: "deadly vapours"... "two Ministry of Defence scientists...have been called to the house to check for plague spores." (Hedging their bets!)
• Independent: "small chemical weapon"

Conclusion: fuck knows. All the papers' "security sources" are under suspicion for making shit up.

Most of them mention the "explosive vest" thing, too. With or without extra nasties.

E2A: fuck me, the NotW couldn't resist a plug for Murdoch's other interests:

One line of inquiry was that the gas was to be released in a busy and enclosed shopping centre, which mirrors the current plotline in the Sky hit drama 24 starring Kiefer Sutherland.

 

[laptop]

Independent links it to the "Crevice" trial:

Mohammed Babar, 31, a senior al-Qa'ida activist turned supergrass after being jailed in the United States, alleged there was an "east London network" linked to other terror suspects, one of a number of other " jihadi" networks around the country.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article624665.ece

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Respect sense a new bandwagon:

The raid on two houses in Forest Gate has shocked the community. 200 police were involved at the cost of tens of thousands of pounds to arrest two young Muslim men allegedly building a terrorist bomb.

One of the suspects was shot and wounded; the other is in Paddington Green police station. The police supposedly acted on a tip off. Press reports have included claims that the young men had become more religious and had grown beards.

We are all, across the communities, opposed to terrorism and have stood against it repeatedly, not least when over 50 people were killed on London's tube and buses last July. But there are very disturbing questions about this case and about the treatment of the Muslim community more generally.

* Why was it necessary to shoot one of the suspects even though there is no evidence that he was armed?
* Were the police following a similar policy to that last summer when the young Brazilian Jean Charles de menezes was shot on the tube?
* Was the evidence against the two men about their appearance or religious devotion? If so, that is a very worrying development.
* Why are Muslims, especially young Muslim men, subject to stop and search six times as great as their white counterparts?

Link

 

[detective-boy]

If an illegal arrest has been made I can sue the police but the courts will always take the account of the police officer in question as fact?

No. The starting point for the courts will be the account of the police officer: "Why did you arrest this person?" (power used, grounds based on, procedure followed). If that account provides the basis for a lawful arrest, and is believed by the Courts, then there will be no unlawful arrest. You can't show an arrest was unlawful without going through this process.

 

[laptop]

Respect sense a new bandwagon:

A group representing the family of Jean Charles de Menezes - the innocent Brazilian shot dead by police in the wake of the 7 July terror bombings - waded into the row. Asad Rehman, chairman of the Newham Monitoring Project, an anti-racism organisation, is acting as spokesman for the family, who wish to remain anonymous.

Rehman, who also acts as political adviser to the Respect MP George Galloway...

Observer

I always had NMP down as quite hostile to SWP bandwaggoning (not least on the grounds that it was a white party exploiting black people's suffering for its own ends). Now its guvnor is leading it.

 

[detective-boy]

Respect sense a new bandwagon:

Seeing as how he gets on peoples nerves ... perhaps the device was planned to be a small explosive charge surrounded by pamphlets and recordings of Geroge Galloway pronouncements.

A sort of "Get-on-your-nerves" gas bomb ...

 

[laptop]

No. The starting point for the courts will be the account of the police officer: "Why did you arrest this person?" (power used, grounds based on, procedure followed).

To expand: The hardest problem for anyone who wants to rely on their belief that an arrest was unwarranted would seem to be the fact that its lawfulness depends on the belief of the arresting officer.

Any tendency by magistrates to grovel before police witnesses is merely icing on that cake.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Seeing as how he gets on peoples nerves ... perhaps the device was planned to be a small explosive charge surrounded by pamphlets and recordings of Geroge Galloway pronouncements.

A sort of "Get-on-your-nerves" gas bomb ...

 

[laptop]

A sort of "Get-on-your-nerves" gas bomb ...

* Emails Steve Bell *

 

[detective-boy]

To expand: The hardest problem for anyone who wants to rely on their belief that an arrest was unwarranted would seem to be the fact that its lawfulness depends on the belief of the arresting officer.

It needs to be more than just belief. There need to be grounds for suspicion which can be explained to another person (the Court) and subjectively assessed.

The main difficulty is that people simply do not understand that they can be lawfully arrested even though they are entirely innocent. The world is not a place full of certainties.

 

[TAE]

I'm talking about instances where the police are making stuff up.

 

[lostexpectation]

so is it he previously got caught with some mace and this is the terrorist threat?

the cops saving you from death by terrorism one shot at time

 

[liampreston]

Could you expand on that, please? Who is it that you suspect the police were after or should have been after (at that address)?

Also, why do you say there was 'surveillance over a long period'? The impression given in the reports I've seen is that the story the police had been given was of an imminent atrocity, they found the story credible and so they decided they had to raid the house urgently, rather than conduct a prolonged spying operation.

I was taking my own conclusions from the coverage I had read... I meant nothing more than feeling around for answers...

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Is this story getting a bit confusing? Now the police are claiming they didn't shoot him and he was shot by a famliy member while the injured is claiming the police shot him! Odd.

 

[laptop]

Is this story getting a bit confusing?

Totally.

Now the police are claiming they didn't shoot him and he was shot by a famliy member

Do we know the police are claiming that, or merely that the News of the World is claiming that?

Of course the NotW story almost certainly comes from a "police source" or (less likely) "security source" - otherwise it'd have to have been made up out of whole cloth?

But whether they were there, in what capacity, what agenda they have, which bits of what police forces or other agencies they're trying to dump on... dunno.