Armed Police

[Bernie174]

back to your To go off on a tangant from a now (righly) closed thread that had long since parted from reality.

Garry.
You point deserves answering

With the greatest possible respect, the law in this country protects the police (or anyone else) from prosecution as long as the person using the force believed, at the time, that it was reasonable and necessary. Therefore, when a police officer shoots an innocent member of the public (or a criminal who doesn't in fact present a real danger) the police officer is still acting lawfully as long as s/he can come up with a good explanation of his/her actions, whether true or not.

Yes, there is one case that is sub judice - but how long ago did that incident take place - 8 years or was it 9? why have we only now got to the point where a police officer may finally be tried as a result of of what many people consider to be the use of nothing more than gratuituous violence? The answer to that one, and to several others, is that police officers, police forces and the so called IPCC refuse to co-operate and withhold evidence from Coroners, with the result that, in several cases, an inquest cannot be held. Why do they do that? Why are they allowed to do that?

The law provides a defence for everyone on the matter of self defence. Anyone, including people who shoot at vans have the option to use it, and the same danger of it being invention applies to everyone.

But you were not there, and therefore your opinion is pure supposition, just as it would be if I was to claim that someone who shot at a van was doing the same thing.

In nearly every case where Police have shot anyone, there is independent evidence that supports their actions. Thats all, publicly available, all reports on Police Shootings are available on the IPCC's web site.

In the vast majority of cases there is no argument with the evidence on the reasons for shooting, that leaves very few where it could be suspected that Police officers 'invented' a reason.

Sometimes the evidence of self defence is the whole, like Mendizes, the point in his case not being it was the wrong person, but all of the information that the officers who shot him had. Self defence was self evident there, which is why none of them faced charges.

Now, in that particular case, the circumstances with one differance was almost identical to the Gibraltar shootings. I don't see you complaining about that? I wonder if your reasoning is more to do with a biased?

So, that leaves very few where it could be argued they had no reason to shoot and it is their evidence alone that has to be relied upon, and thus your thinly veiled implication MIGHT play a part. In those few, one led to prosecution and a Jury decided they believed the Police Officer. In the others, the evidence did not support a charge, even though it would have been scrutinized very very closing by 3 separate bodies.

Moving on, Sub Judice means we are not going to talk about it. Suffice to say it's 10 years old. Had that been a member of the public it would be chucked at first hearing for abuse of process. It wont be, because it's a Police Officer.

Inquests. There's been 2 cases where an Inquest would be difficult, one was Duggan. In the other there was a Judge led Inquiry. That was for all intents and purposes an Inquest, with a narrative verdict. We wont be discussing the evidence in that, apart from to say that the Judge was able to see all of it, and Jury would not. Why? Because some of it put other peoples lives in danger. Other evidence was not gathered to be used as such, and involved technology that it is not in the public interest to be public. However the Judge did see it and ruled it of no material value.

In Duggan...Well, a Jury heard that, and look at the mess they made! An apparently contradictory narrative that had no evidence supporting one part of it. We'll now have years of appeals, counter appeals and counter counter appeals. Until like in a number of cases eventually someone will charge the Police Officers simply to get rid of the problem. Again, there was evidence the Jury could not see, for the same reasons.

Lastly, the IPCC, yep, they are biased, towards the complainant. They already have the ability ( and do) to drive a coach and horses through the rights and protections you and every other member of the public simply because the person concerned is a Police Officer. Thats hardly biased on the Police's part.

We have had the unedifying vision of the Deputy Head of the IPCC second guessing a Jury, and prejudging disciplinary hearings to suit her own agenda. Again, not the actions of someone on the Police's side. Had that been a Police Officer, then perversely they'd be investigated by the IPCC for misconduct in public office!

Your opinion I suspect is more corporate incompetence in the IPCC, not a biased.

Now, as I have said, far far more people have been killed by the public with guns, and mostly with no justification at all. Given the numbers of each, I'd rather the public had no access to firearms. Given the low number of Police shootings and the number of times they are carried, I am perfectly happy with the Police continuing to carry them.

 

[viv1969]

Yes. Because this has the potential for longevity

 

[Nod]

I blame the Chinese.

 

[KIPAX]

I feel the top post could do with pictures.. just to break it up a bit.. or some dramatic music maybe? otherwise you get part way down and start to skip bits in a vain attempt to hurry to the end for the punchline that never delivers.. A part of me is glad I have no idea what this thread is about.. Seems an attempt to bypass a locked thread to me...But thats just how it seems.. I may have another go at reading this later. if it's still here..In fact i hope it's still here when I press post otherwise I wasted a few minutes typing this ....

 

[SFTPhotography]

I liked the post. It was useful and insightful. It pains me to say it but it was. Read it.

 

[Garry Edwards]

back to your To go off on a tangant from a now (righly) closed thread that had long since parted from reality.

Garry.
You point deserves answering



The law provides a defence for everyone on the matter of self defence. Anyone, including people who shoot at vans have the option to use it, and the same danger of it being invention applies to everyone.

But you were not there, and therefore your opinion is pure supposition, just as it would be if I was to claim that someone who shot at a van was doing the same thing.

In nearly every case where Police have shot anyone, there is independent evidence that supports their actions. Thats all, publicly available, all reports on Police Shootings are available on the IPCC's web site.

In the vast majority of cases there is no argument with the evidence on the reasons for shooting, that leaves very few where it could be suspected that Police officers 'invented' a reason.

Sometimes the evidence of self defence is the whole, like Mendizes, the point in his case not being it was the wrong person, but all of the information that the officers who shot him had. Self defence was self evident there, which is why none of them faced charges.

Now, in that particular case, the circumstances with one differance was almost identical to the Gibraltar shootings. I don't see you complaining about that? I wonder if your reasoning is more to do with a biased?

So, that leaves very few where it could be argued they had no reason to shoot and it is their evidence alone that has to be relied upon, and thus your thinly veiled implication MIGHT play a part. In those few, one led to prosecution and a Jury decided they believed the Police Officer. In the others, the evidence did not support a charge, even though it would have been scrutinized very very closing by 3 separate bodies.

Moving on, Sub Judice means we are not going to talk about it. Suffice to say it's 10 years old. Had that been a member of the public it would be chucked at first hearing for abuse of process. It wont be, because it's a Police Officer.

Inquests. There's been 2 cases where an Inquest would be difficult, one was Duggan. In the other there was a Judge led Inquiry. That was for all intents and purposes an Inquest, with a narrative verdict. We wont be discussing the evidence in that, apart from to say that the Judge was able to see all of it, and Jury would not. Why? Because some of it put other peoples lives in danger. Other evidence was not gathered to be used as such, and involved technology that it is not in the public interest to be public. However the Judge did see it and ruled it of no material value.

In Duggan...Well, a Jury heard that, and look at the mess they made! An apparently contradictory narrative that had no evidence supporting one part of it. We'll now have years of appeals, counter appeals and counter counter appeals. Until like in a number of cases eventually someone will charge the Police Officers simply to get rid of the problem. Again, there was evidence the Jury could not see, for the same reasons.

Lastly, the IPCC, yep, they are biased, towards the complainant. They already have the ability ( and do) to drive a coach and horses through the rights and protections you and every other member of the public simply because the person concerned is a Police Officer. Thats hardly biased on the Police's part.

We have had the unedifying vision of the Deputy Head of the IPCC second guessing a Jury, and prejudging disciplinary hearings to suit her own agenda. Again, not the actions of someone on the Police's side. Had that been a Police Officer, then perversely they'd be investigated by the IPCC for misconduct in public office!

Your opinion I suspect is more corporate incompetence in the IPCC, not a biased.

Now, as I have said, far far more people have been killed by the public with guns, and mostly with no justification at all. Given the numbers of each, I'd rather the public had no access to firearms. Given the low number of Police shootings and the number of times they are carried, I am perfectly happy with the Police continuing to carry them.

Bernie,
Thanks for a detailed and carefully thought-out post.

I have absolutely no problem with police officers being able to use the perfectly valid defence of self defence, where they have acted properly and I (reluctantly) accept that self defence was a valid legal defence in the Stockwell shooting, even though it was probably 'red mist' and adrenalin that led to an unarmed and innocent man being shot at 8 times whilst being held down by police officers and totally defenceless.

Yes, someone who shoots at a van can claim that he acted in self defence. But, in a case like this, the police try very hard to prove an improper motive - do they try to do that when it's a police officer, or do they just go through the motions?
And trying very hard might include inventing false evidence and suppressing actual evidence. The whole system protects the police and the information they hold, it is virtually impossible for a member of the public to actually find out what the police have, or to find out what various senior police officers have said to each other - virtually impossible but not totally impossible, there are some people who have better access than most, and there are some Judges who are prepared to order disclosure of police documents - but these options are beyond the financial and other resources of most people, so if the police want to play dirty, then they can usually do so very safely. I could say a lot more about this but, for obvious reasons, I'm not going to.

As for the IPCC, I share your opinion of them, but for different reasons. From previous posts, it's clear that you feel that they are against police officers, and you may be right in the sense that some of them, being human, are likely to have the same failings as the rest of us.
But their whole setup, and their very limited terms of reference, mean that they definately don't serve the public well, they are little more than a theoretical longstop.

Take a scenario that may or may not be theoretical - you will have to decide that for yourself...
1. A member of the public feels that there has been serious police misconduct at a high level, but he cannot positively identify the rank of the person responsible at this stage, so cannot get the IPCC to look at it (the alleged misconduct has to be above the level of Chief Superintendent for the IPCC to get involved so the IPCC refer the case to the Professional Standards Dept - part of the same police force that is suspected of serious misconduct by a very senior officer.
2. Eventually, the PSD produces a written report. It finds that none of the allegations have any merit whatever.
3. Their report doesn't even address the most serious issues
4. Their report includes written statements from some current police officers, any officers who have since left or retired are excluded
5. Their report does not include any statements from any people who are not police officers

So, a complete whitewash so,
6. A complaint is then made to the IPCC, who have the job of investigating the investigation - but that is the limit of their remit.
7. They are critical of the investigation but say that although the investigation could have been more thorough, there is nothing that can now be done about that, they believe that the ommissions were due to inefficiency rather than to an attempt to cover up misconduct, so is outside their terms of reference.

Case closed. Nothing can now be done, ever, because the complainant has now exhausted the complaints procedure.

So, what happens if a document later surfaces that proves beyond any possible doubt that the PSD did in fact obtain a statement that proved serious misconduct but that they then forgot to include it in their findings?
Nothing happens, case closed.

You ignored my point that the police and IPCC seem to get away with withholding evidence from the Coroner. A judge-led enquiry may well be similar to an inquest, but it may be fair to point out that a Coroner has no career structure, no real prospects of promotion and has nothing to fear if he fails to toe the party line, if there is one. That clearly can't be said of judges, HMG often appoints them to 'investigate' scandals and HMG is almost invariably found to have done nothing wrong... As I'm sure you know, 'Coroner' is a corruption of 'Crowner', an officer acting on behalf of the King (or Crown) who is completely impartial.

My view, FWIW, is that the vast majority of front line police officers do an excellent job and everything we expect them to be. My suspicion is that when you were in the job, either things were different at ACPO levels or you didn't know what really happens at these exalted levels.

 

[Dave *]

I blame the Chinese.

Everyone knows it's the Russians to blame, the Chinese just copy everything they do .

 

[Bernie174]

Garry

I could say that it was red mist that led to the shooting at a van. But I wasn't there, nor was I in the mind of the person doing the shooting, so although I can say it, it has no validity at all. Which is what annoys me about what you wrote this time, and implied last. It's very easy from your armchair to pass verdict, but of course you were not faced with the situation they were. You were not acting in an operation where rightly or wrongly the officers shooting had reasons to believe that the person had a device. You do not have the intelligence picture about how such a device is detonated, nor were you in a position where you will have to take the decision to take the only action that can prevent that.

The last of those points is certainly the actions taken by the Hereford Hooligans in Gibraltar, but attracted no complaint, apart from the IRA. You have never claimed that was red mist, yet the circumstances in terms of law and reasoning for reaction are identical. Interestingly, the IRA 3 didn't have a device or access to one either!

Quite rightly, in the circumstances the CPS decided there was no case to answer, had there been 'red mist' then the CPS would have charged. They didn't.


I did not ignore you point about the IPCC witholding evidence, I addressed it in 2 cases

We wont be discussing the evidence in that, apart from to say that the Judge was able to see all of it, and Jury would not. Why? Because some of it put other peoples lives in danger. Other evidence was not gathered to be used as such, and involved technology that it is not in the public interest to be public. However the Judge did see it and ruled it of no material value.

In Duggan...Well, a Jury heard that, and look at the mess they made! An apparently contradictory narrative that had no evidence supporting one part of it. We'll now have years of appeals, counter appeals and counter counter appeals. Until like in a number of cases eventually someone will charge the Police Officers simply to get rid of the problem. Again, there was evidence the Jury could not see, for the same reasons.

The simple fact are things that were never intended as evidence that cannot be put to a Jury. Be that because it puts someones life in danger, so that would be the sources of information about passing round of firearms, like in Duggen. Or some sorts of surveillance as in another case. In the latter, the Judge leading the Inquiry did see it.

It isn't a matter of the evidence being withheld by the IPCC, it's that it cannot be called by the Coroner.

The other points I will come back to you this evening on, as I unfortunately have to go and earn a crust.

 

[PaulF]

Bernie,
You're hinting that you have some form of 'inside' knowledge on at least one of the cases you are referring too. Can you confirm you are posting as some kind of authority on the matter as an ex police officer (you left the Force around 1999 I believe). I.e. The cases you are hinting at were at a time when you were in the police (Heathrow) and therefore may have some knowledge or were they after you left and are posting just like anyone else here, as a member of the general public?

 

[Garry Edwards]

I think that even you must agree that there are a lot of unanswered questions in the Duggan case, and I for one would be happier if there was much more transparency.
The problems seemed to start with the false statement that the police returned fire, after one of them was shot by Duggan. OK, that statement was made by the IPCC not by the police, but where do you think the IPCC will have got their information from?
Could it have been from the same police force who falsely stated that de Menzes had jumped over turnstiles and had been wearing a thick quilted jacket, capable of concealing a bomb vest?
The same police force that falsely stated that Mark Saunders had fired at them before they shot him dead?

If what actually happened was that the police officer who opened fire genuinely believed that Duggan had a gun and intended to shoot him with it and later discovered that this was incorrect, then that explanation is good enough, and totally justifies his own actions - pure self defence, based on his true belief at the time. But that isn't the story that has been told.

I deliberately didn't address your point about the

Hereford Hooligans in Gibraltar

not because I have any views on their actions, but because I don't think it's relevant. Like the military, the police are an arm of government, put in place to uphold government. But, the police have a far more complex role and they are expected to do their duty to the public as well as to their bosses. The military role is in many ways simpler, we don't know and will never know whether the "Hereford Hooligans" as you put it were ordered, directly or otherwise, not to take prisoners. We could have a pointless philosophical discussion about whether or not orders should be ignored if they are illegal, but if they were told that they were not expected to take prisoners then the overlying responsibility must rest, not with the individuals who carried out that order, but with the source of that order. For all we know it may have come from someone very high up in HMG.

Of course I agree with you that there will be information - some of it obtained perhaps by methods that might put lives in danger, or that the public may not know about - that must be kept secret from the public, but what possible reason can there be for withholding it from a Coroner?

 

[Bernie174]

Paul

I am answering, or in fact making points that are all in the public arena. You just need to know where to get the information.

Garry,
It has been a very long day, so I will wait until tomorrow to continue with the answer to your original response.

On your new issues, none of those are unanswered. The IPCC made the press release in the first instance, and they did so without actually getting the first accounts from the officers. None of the officers concerned, and it's never been alleged that they had, made any such claim.
The IPCC say they got that information from Senior Police Officers, I actually believe them on that, as to how the message got transposed, I'd put it down to people not listening. In any event, the IPCC should, could have and didn't wait an couple of hours.
For Paul's benefit, all this information is in the investigation report published by the IPCC.

I think you'll find that Mr Saunders did fire at police a number of times. He had a choice and had had that choice for hours, he didn't take it. Tough. A jury found he was lawfully killed.

Did you see the converge of the aftermath of the Manzes shooting? Clearly not, that was the account given to Sky news by a 'witness' of what happened. That account went on to show me, who has used Stockwell tube station he was talking total crap. Oddly he didn't come forward to the IPCC and disappeared after the press interview. Who told Blair what was never clear, but again, it was investigated by the IPCC and he was cleared of lying. Blair was a useless Commissioner, who should have been charged with misconduct in public office over a number of things, so I have absolutely no interest in defending him, and I detest having to do so, but sorry sunshine, he's innocent of your allegation.

I'm afraid your assessment of the Gib shootings is also completely wrong. The 2 cases are identical in principle of law. In both cases the people doing the shooting (it's irrelevant who they are) had information that wasn't correct, and therefore formed an opinion that was wrong, but for good reasons. In both cases they shot, and killed people who in the cold light of day had committed no offence. The number of times the 3 IRA members were shot was actually more than the number of shots fired at Menzes. Was that red mist?

Soldiers like Police cannot be 'ordered' to kill someone in peacetime. It's why there are now calls to charge members of the Parachute Regiment over Bloody Sunday. Your dismissal as not relevant is incorrect, it's the same principle of law and the similar circumstances. I appreciate that you have no idea about Military Aid to Civil Power, and how that works, and your remarks show that very clearly.

Coroners...Again! They can't have it shared with them for the same reason the Jury can't. Thats why in the case of Duggan, a Judge was appointed as Deputy Coroner, because he was vetted, and therefore allowed to see and hear the evidence that needed to be withheld, and decide if it was something that the jury needed to know, or could be evidenced in another way. It's also why a retired Judge was used in the other matter.

 

[viv1969]

His name was Jean Charles de Menezes, not Menzes.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Bernie,

As so often happens, you ignore the substantive points and nit pick about the things that make no difference.

1. The police were responsible for false statements in the cases of all 3 victims.
2. Yes, Duggan seems to have been an armed criminal, but the statements made about his actions clearly had no basis in truth.
3. Yes, de Menzes was honestly (although wrongly) suspected of being a terrorist, but again the statements made about him following his death had no basis in truth
4. Yes, Saunders got himself drunk and definately shouldn't have stood at his window firing his shotgun, although as far as I know there is no credible evidence that he fired in the direction of the police. 57 police officers armed with 100 firearms, including fully automatic weapons, pitched themselves against a drunken man armed with an empty shotgun. A shot was fired (but not by Saunders) and a lot of police officers then shot Mr. Saunders, no doubt believing that it was he who had fired the shot, and apparently unable to tell the difference between the sound of a shotgun and the sound of a centrefire police weapon - which comes as no surprise to me, as another police force seems to be unable to tell the difference between the sound of a shotgun and the sound of car doors being closed. Saunders was desperate to speak to his wife, she was desperate to speak to him but the police refused to allow it and didn't allow her to answer his text. Instead, they prevented any conversation by drowning out all possibility of communication by placing their helicopter directly overhead, increasing the stress as well as the noise level. Yes, the inquest found that they had killed him lawfully because they had acted within the law, but that doesn't mean that they acted properly.
5. Of course I accept that military personel can't be ordered to break the law, I didn't suggest otherwise. All that I'm trying to understand is why those SAS troopers may have killed the IRA terrorists, and all that I'm saying is that hints may have been made to the effect that it would be better if they weren't allowed to surrender. Or maybe the troopers hadn't forgotten how many other SAS troopers had been killed by the IRA, who knows? The laws may apply equally to both the military and to the police, but let's be realistic, the SAS are a world apart from the police.

 

[Bernie174]

No Garry, I've not ignored anything you have said. I've answered those points.

Early press statements on most things contain errors, sometimes it's mostly error. It happens, people are generally busy doing what needs to be done, and trying to communicate things in a hurry. Misunderstandings happen, statements made by 'witnesses' are quoted and shouldn't have been. We seen it more now thats there's 24 hour news, but we also see those corrected usually reasonably quickly. It shouldn't happen of course, but those press statements don't form part of evidence.

On Duggan. The only press release about his actions was that he had shot a Police Officer. So it's statement, not Statements. Read the IPCC report on the matter.

On Saunders, please go and read the report. You claim Police didn't act properly, the IPCC and Inquest found otherwise. You are not an expert of tactical use of firearms and you've shown numerous times you have no real understanding of law, procedures and or facts. You are not in a position to make the comments you do.

The military role is in many ways simpler, we don't know and will never know whether the "Hereford Hooligans" as you put it were ordered, directly or otherwise, not to take prisoners. We could have a pointless philosophical discussion about whether or not orders should be ignored if they are illegal,

Is more than a suggestion that SAS were 'ordered' to kill. Why would it be better if they hadn't surrendered? In actual fact is FAR better that they do. Firstly they would have been a better source of intelligence, remembering that the IRA went for peace not because they were winning, but because they were riddled with informants, and secondly the reaction in the Catholic Community is Ulster was predictably much the same as some on Menzes. Killing for the sake of it served no purpose at all.

Apart from you no one is interested in a Police v SAS contest, merely showing you that your opinions are incorrect, 2 incidents, 2 incorrect conclusions, for the same reason and the same point of law. The same outcome using the same method, with numerous shots fired for the same reason to achieve the same ends. That particular method of killing being something specifically designed to stop some detonating a device. And in both far from being 'red mist'.

The pronouncements on Gib is like most of your posts on Police use of firearms, all assumption and no substance.

So, to recap, your only issue with Police using firearms so far is press statements. You have said nothing whatsoever of substance on why it is such a concern to you. So lets get back to the point. Why is it such a concern?

 

[Garry Edwards]

Bernie,

It seems to be a waste of time having this conversation with you. I've explained why I am concerned about high level police cover ups and lies, although I would have thought that most people would be concerned about that.

All that you have done is to point out, repeatedly, that I don't know what I'm talking about and, by implication, that the only person who could possibly understand the realities is you, because you were once a police officer...
I've never been in the police and I've never served in the military either - wrong personality for either, even if I'd been accepted for either, I wouldn't have lasted because I'm not the sort of person who is willing to sacrifice my own principles and accept orders without question.
My father was different, he served in the army for many years and although, like me, he had an inbuilt inability to be led by donkeys and ended up being Courts Marshalled 3 times, he was affected by military values and attitudes, and this ruined his life, he ended up as a bigot and a racist, believing that everyone who wasn't white or "Christian" was inferior - not for me!

My concern is not with ordinary, front line police officers, nor is it with former front line police officers such as yourself. It's with the culture of policing at the most senior levels - self serving senior officers who seem to be concerned much more about their own promotion prospects, 'protecting' their force from negative publicity and acting far more like politicians than public servants. For these people, spin is everything and truth is nothing. Their press statements are not spur of the moment things, they are prepared in advance, and I have written evidence of where they obtain their advice on what to say to the press

43 'different' police forces, all acting as one because they are an arm of government, just like the military. The same government has set up an "independent" police complaints authority that has no teeth and very limited resources, their very limited resources ensure that they are unable to fulfil their role of supervising the police and their very limited terms of reference mean that in most cases, they can only examine police processes, nothing else. They are there as a theoretical longstop only, to protect the Home Office and reassure the public. You have failed to answer any of my previous points on the IPCC.

Yes, I have read the IPCC reports, but you say that they found that the police had acted properly - all that I can say on that is that you must have read different reports to me... The reports I read didn't say that at all, the conclusions were that they had not broken the law - but that's not surprising as it is very difficult, in these situations, for the police to break the law and they are perfectly able to withhold evidence from the IPCC anyway.

And it's much the same with civil law too. The police have special protection within the law, see the landmark case of Hill v West Yorkshire police. Hill lost because of this special protection, it wasn't enough that the police had been incompetent beyond belief, negligent and ineffective, Hill couldn't win because the police had no specific duty to any individual because there was no special relationship between them.

Why won't you just accept that
1. It isn't necessary for someone to actually be a police officer to understand exactly how their systems are abused by some senior officers?
2. That years ago, when you were a police officer, you were not (to your credit) part of this elite sub culture and knew nothing about it?

On second thoughts, please don't bother to answer.

 

[viv1969]

Whilst this is indeed an interesting thread, can you guys PLEASE have a tad of respect for the man reduced to a colander by police over-reaction, and refer to his actual name:
Jean Charles de Menezes.

Yes, I can already hear the cries of "Pedant!!", but the man was a victim and deserves just a wee bit of respect IMO.

 

[Bernie174]

Garry

None of the reports offer anything other than minor points on the periphery that had no real bearing on the main event. Like the often wheeled out by the IPCC that Police Officers should make their notes separately. I can't disagree with that, although it will only lead to one thing, using the differences in any 2 peoples recollections as 'evidence of dishonesty'. Of course it usually isn't, read the de Menezes report as an example, no 2 members of the public said the same thing.
In the main events, they have no evidence of misconduct or criminal acts. If the actions of the officers at the point of shooting were correct than there are no concerns about Police carrying guns per sae.
In any major event things can be learned and done better, but shootings specifically ended as they did, and no one is in a position to say with certainty that had those minor peripheral things happened the event would have ended differently.

Hill v WYP is a lot more complicated than your brief summary, and does not only mean Police Forces, it is for all intents and purposes irreverent to this discussion though, except to say that in the main it isn't supporting your claim of immunity.
Police do not enjoy any protection from civil or criminal proceedings, in fact the opposite is certainly true in criminal matters, there's a large number of cases, not just involving firearms, where they would have been chucked out at first or committal stages had it not been a Police Officer involved.
On Civil matters, it's usually easier to get cash out of a Police Force, they don't often fight anything in the civil court.

Of course it can be argued that individual Police Officers are more knowledgeable about law and therefore can wriggle out of things. The same thing that can be said of Lawyers, Judges and any other professional group where there is law involved. The difference is though that Police Officers don't have the same protections that all of those groups have. In any case in most cases the account of a defendant is less important than it was because of advances in forensic and recorded evidence. I think we'll see a huge drop in complaints, and these groundless allegations by families who were no where near these events when personal cameras are rolled out fully.

Now, I was going to answer later about Senior Officers. I can't say I ever had much time for many of them, very few officers at my level did, possibly ever. The rot set in many years ago, as far as I am concerned when they started to promote on the basis of a degree not ability. The more that happened, the more people with no ability and a degree got promoted, as anyone who was able would make the ranks above him look even worse. Self licking lollipop springs to mind. So I am going to agree with you on the incompetence and self serving attitude, with a few, a very few exceptions.

But those senior officers don't really affect the police use of firearms, apart from ballsing up pre planned events, by constantly running to cover their own backs. Even so, lets assume the world was a better place and the current crop of twits were replaced by people who possessed a backbone and who can make a decision for the best and not for the sake of their own career. Would anything be different in terms of Armed Policing? No, probably not, yes you might get things done quicker, for example in De Menezes you might have got a firearms team in the right place, instead of them playing catch up, but thats not guaranteed.

Are things abused by them? No, mostly. The majority are not bright enough to do so. In any case, people like me would have been delighted to drop them in it given half a chance. The odd one or 2 might have abused things, but show me any organisation where that doesn't happen? The failings you attribute to abuse are usually making a mess of trying to keep themselves out of the poo. Should that be a sacking offence, yes, will it ever be, no.


So nothing you said originally about the 'street' level arming of police have you backed up with anything meaningful. In that sense you are wrong, and there's no real arguing it.

On the upper echelons, it's really incidental to policing, and would make little real difference in my opinion. Your allegations about press releases are again incidental, they would have made no difference to what happened, and have no affect on any investigation, they are afterall press releases, nothing more. In any case, the IPCC were culpable whatever way you look at it, they are the Investigating Authority it is for them to check the accuracy of what they tell the press.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Bernie, you said

So nothing you said originally about the 'street' level arming of police have you backed up with anything meaningful. In that sense you are wrong, and there's no real arguing it.

My aplologies, I misunderstood you. I now see that you’re referring to my post on the other thread, the one that was closed by TP, in which I had said

Personally, I'm unhappy with the idea of even more police officers walking around with guns because I believe that the safety standard is nothing short of appalling. My personal experience is limited to just 3 force areas, it is of course possible that all of the armed officers in the other 40 forces may be much better trained.

I thought that this thread was about something different, the corrupt, self serving very senior police officers whose only function in life seems to be to protect themselves, to the detriment of both the real police and the public, and also about the inefficiency of the complaints system, both the internal police complaint system, which is endemically corrupt, and the so-called Independent Police Complaints Commission, which is rendered toothless by its limited resources and its even more limited terms of reference.

But, if you want me to expand on what I said in the earlier thread then I will.

I know quite a few armed police officers and count some of them among my friends.

Every now and again, some of them will join civilian shooting clubs (both rifle and shotgun) that I’m involved with.

Now, every new (and old) member is always watched like a proverbial hawk, shooting sports are very safe because they are so potentially dangerous that we make absolutely sure that everyone behaves themselves properly and that everyone always follows the correct safety procedures. Many new members do silly things sometimes, they either respond immediately to advice or they go.

With armed police officers, their general perception of safety falls far below our acceptable standards. We nearly always have to pull them up for breaking even the most basic safety rules. To their credit, they nearly always change immediately and learn quickly. But some don’t, and they have to leave. These are the people who seem to think that they are doing us a favour by gracing us with their presence – after all, they are police ‘marksmen- - professionals who have been highly trained by other ‘professionals' and who know far more about guns than any civilian. To these people, police training is right, everyone else is wrong and it’s perfectly OK if they walk around with loaded guns when they must not be loaded, it’s OK if they fail to check that the gun is empty when they’ve finished and it’s perfectly OK to leave guns in unattended vehicles too. Their attitude is that we know nothing because we only play at it, we have never taken fire, we have never had to shoot at anyone, we have never fired automatic weapons. Well, apart from the automatic weapons bit, nor have they, and God help them if they ever have to actually shoot someone who is shooting back at them, mostly they can’t even hit a paper target that isn’t shooting back, let alone hit the tiny bullseye, and as for fast-moving clays… by the time they’ve actually fired and missed, the clays have landed safely, met, fell in love and bred some mini clays

But I’m not talking about competence, which doesn’t matter much, I’m talking about their safety attitudes.

Macho men who think that theyr’e God’s gift, and who think that everyone should be impressed simply because they have met police standards.

We don’t get anywhere near these attitude problems with ex army infantrymen, who really can shoot well. There seems to me to be something about the police training regime that trains these people to believe that they really are the best, the elite, and that standards of safety, care and competence that apply to everyone else are irrelevant when it comes to them. I’ve encountered exactly the same problems with police dog trainers in the past, although that knowledge is now out of date and hopefully things will have changed in that area.

And that is precisely why I am unhappy with the idea of even more police officers walking around with guns. My view is that if their ‘elite’ specialists are so badly trained and have such a bad attitude (generally) then God help us if we get less well trained officers waving guns around as well.

Personally, I’ve been around armed military a few times, I’ve been very close to them in situations where they have been armed with assault rifles and ready to fire, because of the situation, and it doesn’t bother me a bit. I can’t say the same when I see armed police at airports with their guns in condition zero, they give me the shivers.

Back though to this thread.

Hill v WYP is a lot more complicated than your brief summary

No it isn’t. The question for the Court was whether or not the police had any direct responsibility for protecting any specific member of the public from murderous attack, and the answer was that they don’t, unless a ‘special relationship’ exists between the police and the victim. All the rest of it was just overpaid lawyers trying to cloud the waters.

On Civil matters, it's usually easier to get cash out of a Police Force, they don't often fight anything in the civil court.

That used to be true, but you’re out of date. The current coalition government introduced new rules that make it very difficult for public bodies to settle out of Court. Apparently this followed public concern about the BBC paying very large sums to those of their senior staff who left them. As a result, the police now fight every inch of the way, and seem to have a policy of “deny, deny, deny” everything, and of spending an absolute fortune on commissioning unnecessary and unbelievably expensive “expert” reports and of instructing the most expensive barristers, forcing whoever wants to sue them to do the same, and in doing so , hopefully bankrupt themselves. Of course, they are not the only people to abuse the legal system in this way, a lot of really large corporations, including the tobacco giants, do it too.

I see that you haven’t commented on my comments about the police complaints system or the IPCC “longstop” but then I guess that you have strong views in the opposite direction, and don’t actually know how these things actually work today. I do, because I'm currently involved, and if only I could show you the evidence that I've come across, you would accept it I'm sure. But I can't.

 

[andya700]

I do not see how anyone - even an ex police officer - could defend the actions of the Police in the Charles Menezez case. There were lies, attempted cover ups and possible intimidation of witnesses.
At the end of the day, a totally innocent person was killed, and I believe that whoever ordered him to be killed should be tried for murder, because it was a premeditated action.

 

[Garry Edwards]

I do not see how anyone - even an ex police officer - could defend the actions of the Police in the Charles Menenez case. There were lies, attempted cover ups and possible intimidation of witnesses.
At the end of the day, a totally innocent person was killed, and I believe that whoever ordered him to be killed should be tried for murder, because it was a premeditated action.

Yes, their were lies, incompetence, cover ups, police briefing against Mr Charles Menenez (when he was dead and unable to defend his reputation), evidence was destroyed (a can of Fanta was mysteriously poured by an unknown person into the CCTV system) and there are real questions why any police officers needed to shoot him in the head just once, let alone 8 times, when he was being held down by other police officers.

But, legally it was all OK because the police officers genuinely believed that he presented a real danger at the time, so their actions amounted to self defence. In theory, that legal protection also applies to anyone else who uses force when they believe that they have no choice.

 

[viv1969]

I give up. Is it that hard to get a name right?

 

[Bernie174]

I do not see how anyone - even an ex police officer - could defend the actions of the Police in the Charles Menenez case. There were lies, attempted cover ups and possible intimidation of witnesses.
At the end of the day, a totally innocent person was killed, and I believe that whoever ordered him to be killed should be tried for murder, because it was a premeditated action.

Rather than making sweeping comments Andy, show us the evidence.
But before you do, go into the case law on self defence, because in what you have written you have shown you don't understand it. Also look at the Gibraltar case, as it is the same principle, so I guess you are also suggesting they should have been tried for murder?

You also claim 'lies'. Provide evidence before you make sweeping statements please. Same with cover ups. You also need to be aware that those allegations have been investigated, and found not to be the case.

Right, back to Garry.

Garry if what you are saying on safety held any water, then there'd be numerous cases of negligent discharges, there aren't though

But the fact is there isn't. In my knowledge there has been one death, possibly 2. I say possibly because I have not seen the report into the second one. While I also know of 2 discharges of firearms, one was a Police issue MP5, that was defective, the other was a sky marshals weapon that again was defective and handed to the officer as unloaded. In checking that it went off. The scientist who examined it was amazed it hadn't gone off before it was in such a poor condition.

Lastly, where do you get the rubbish from about a fanta can? The system had been out of use for weeks before hand.

There are no questions why he was shot in the head, and nor are there any as to why that was 8 times. I thought you said you'd read the report? Clearly not, because the reasoning and the legality of that action are fully covered there.

 

[Garry Edwards]

There have been umpteen cases of negligent discharges. The last one that I personally know about involved a royal protection officer, sitting in a car and allegedly protecting the house of HRH William.
Of course, there are also negligent discharges with the professionals too, but they are very rare.
When that happens, the offending soldier is dealt with very severely by his mates. And if an officer also gets to hear about it, he is fined a minium of a month's pay too. When they happen in the police, it always seems to turn out not to be a negligent discharge at all, it's always an accidental discharge, which attaches no fault to the idiot involved.

Fortuately, most negligent discharges don't result in death or injury. If they did, you would be aware of far more.

Back to Stockwell, and the unfortunate Jean Charles de Menezes. According to the police, the system had been down for weeks. But according to people involved, it had been working perfectly until the police took over the room, then an unidentified police officer had an accident with a can of Fanta. I wasn't there, so can only rely on what has been said by the people who actually were.

Back to my post in reply to you; still no reply to that I see...

 

[andya700]

Rather than making sweeping comments Andy, show us the evidence.
But before you do, go into the case law on self defence

Are you seriously suggesting that the firearms officers acted in self defence against an unarmed man who posed no threat to them?
If that is the case, then by that "logic", EVERY innocent person in the UK could be a "legitimate police target" for self defence.
You couldn't make this up - except if you were a police (or ex) man.
I don't hate the police Bernie, but it seems that every single time the police are criticised, you spring to their defence.

 

[andya700]

I give up. Is it that hard to get a name right?

Sorry. Now changed.

 

[boyfalldown]

You also claim 'lies'. Provide evidence before you make sweeping statements please. Same with cover ups. You also need to be aware that those allegations have been investigated, and found not to be the case.

Thats not what the inquest jury said. They made it pretty clear they felt they were being lied to

 

[Bernie174]

Are you seriously suggesting that the firearms officers acted in self defence against an unarmed man who posed no threat to them?
If that is the case, then by that "logic", EVERY innocent person in the UK could be a "legitimate police target" for self defence.
You couldn't make this up - except if you were a police (or ex) man.
I don't hate the police Bernie, but it seems that every single time the police are criticised, you spring to their defence.

I don't need to suggest anything in this case Andy.
The IPCC investigated, followed by consideration by the CPS. They found there was no case to answer, to do that they had to find that the officers were justified in firing. Had there been evidence they were not, the officers would have been prosecuted. Three Judges later threw out a Judicial review of that decision. So, all of these legally qualified people looked at all the evidence, and found that there was no reason to prosecute. The only conclusion is therefore the officers were justified in their actions.

So, please can you tell us why you think the officers were not justified, keeping in mind where I have directed you, the case law on self defence. Because at the moment, you are just trotting out what you think, but without looking at the evidence as it stands, or the case law as it applies.

 

[Bernie174]

Did they Hugh? I've read the transcript and they don't say that or imply it.

 

[boyfalldown]

Did they Hugh? I've read the transcript and they don't say that or imply it.

I'm a little unsure what you read Bernie. But I suspect it wasn't the transcript of their verdict. Else you would have noticed that in the questions then answered as part of that verdict they completely dismissed the testimony of the firearms officers who shot him. Of course you could argue the open verdict (which was the most critical available to them) kind of makes a mockery of the self defence argument too.

 

[Garry Edwards]

I'm a little unsure what you read Bernie. But I suspect it wasn't the transcript of their verdict. Else you would have noticed that in the questions then answered as part of that verdict they completely dismissed the testimony of the firearms officers who shot him. Of course you could argue the open verdict (which was the most critical available to them) kind of makes a mockery of the self defence argument too.

Hugh,

I don't think you understand how police apologists think here, but I believe it goes something like this.
1. It doesn't matter what the public think, or what a jury thinks (or at least not when they think they've been lied to)
2. It doesn't matter what actually happens. Facts can cloud the issue
3. Official statements to the press by senior police officers don't matter either, anyone can get details wrong

What really matters is
1. whether or not the law can be manipulated in such a way that actions that appear to be grossly wrong as well as illegal can be presented in a way that makes them appear to be legal
2. If they can't be manipulated, will the CPS have the balls to actually prosecute - or will they just give up on the basis that evidence will disappear, other evidence will be created and witnesses are bound to suffer amnaesia?
Can the IPCC be relied upon to give their usual support to the police, regardless of the facts?

 

[Bernie174]

Hugh. The Inquest Jury is the Inquest Jury, It really means nothing more than to confirm the cause time and manner of death. Thats what it is there for. It does not, and cannot apportion blame for that death.
It didn't, and it returned one of the 2 verdicts it could, the other being lawfully killed. They could not return 'unlawful killing' because that option was not open to them in view of the verdict in the H&S Case, and the comments made by that Jury.


Even if they could return such a verdict, like they did in Tomlinson, it does not mean the officers concerned are guilty, you'll recall he was acquitted.

Garry, you are so tiresome. The 'facts' you rely upon aren't facts at all. That is abundantly clear from what you wrote in your last silly comment.

I'll repeat it to you, the facts, thats the real facts, not the invented ones you keep reeling off, have been investigated. During that investigation nearly 900 statements taken. The scene was examined by forensic experts, ballistic experts and all the CCTV that was working was siezed and looked at.

So unless you are trying to suggest that all of those statements were somehow doctored to produce a result you don't agree with, in spite of the IPCC being hell bent on convicting Police, then you need to go and seek some help.

All of that evidence went to the CPS. They found no evidence to support what you claim, none.

The evidence was then heard by the Jury, in both a criminal case and an Inquest, and the officers evidence was tested in that. Again, after those 2 hearings the evidence went back to the CPS for another look, by another Barrister. He also found there to be no evidence supporting what you say.

The family then went to Judicial Review into that decision. That was unsuccessful, because there is no evidence supporting what you say.

In short Garry, you are off again, talking crap. No one needs to be an apologist for Police on this because the evidence on one part of it is that the Met failed in a duty of Health & Safety. It was convicted of that. On the matter of the actual shooting and the reasons behind it, the officers concerned have been exonerated. Those ARE the only facts here. No clouding, no fudging, thats the way it is, the officers are innocent.

I await with a degree of anticipated amusement for your weak and insipid answer. But first go and read the report, because with it you are regurgitating crap that has long since been shown to be rubbish.

 

[boyfalldown]

Hugh. The Inquest Jury is the Inquest Jury, It really means nothing more than to confirm the cause time and manner of death. Thats what it is there for. It does not, and cannot apportion blame for that death.
It didn't, and it returned one of the 2 verdicts it could, the other being lawfully killed. They could not return 'unlawful killing' because that option was not open to them in view of the verdict in the H&S Case, and the comments made by that Jury.


Even if they could return such a verdict, like they did in Tomlinson, it does not mean the officers concerned are guilty, you'll recall he was acquitted.

Garry, you are so tiresome. The 'facts' you rely upon aren't facts at all. That is abundantly clear from what you wrote in your last silly comment.

I'll repeat it to you, the facts, thats the real facts, not the invented ones you keep reeling off, have been investigated. During that investigation nearly 900 statements taken. The scene was examined by forensic experts, ballistic experts and all the CCTV that was working was siezed and looked at.

So unless you are trying to suggest that all of those statements were somehow doctored to produce a result you don't agree with, in spite of the IPCC being hell bent on convicting Police, then you need to go and seek some help.

All of that evidence went to the CPS. They found no evidence to support what you claim, none.

The evidence was then heard by the Jury, in both a criminal case and an Inquest, and the officers evidence was tested in that. Again, after those 2 hearings the evidence went back to the CPS for another look, by another Barrister. He also found there to be no evidence supporting what you say.

The family then went to Judicial Review into that decision. That was unsuccessful, because there is no evidence supporting what you say.

In short Garry, you are off again, talking crap. No one needs to be an apologist for Police on this because the evidence on one part of it is that the Met failed in a duty of Health & Safety. It was convicted of that. On the matter of the actual shooting and the reasons behind it, the officers concerned have been exonerated. Those ARE the only facts here. No clouding, no fudging, thats the way it is, the officers are innocent.

I await with a degree of anticipated amusement for your weak and insipid answer. But first go and read the report, because with it you are regurgitating crap that has long since been shown to be rubbish.

So it's changed from 'they weren't lied to' into 'it doesn't matter, it was only the inquest' then Bernie? The sad fact Is people like me broadly support the police. Apologists for lying just erode that support.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Bernie,

I have in fact read the IPCC report, it highlighted several serious concerns, even though it is in reality an arm of government specifically set up to reassure the public that another arm of government, the police, is blameless, and acts as a protective shield to senior officers (although, very occasionally, it does find fault with very junior ones). If anyone else can be bothered to argue with you, the full report is linked to here and the same page also links to other relevant reports - but I won't bother spending time on it because you still won't address any of my substantive points and it obviously isn't worth trying to have a civilised discussion with someone who doesn't even listen to what the other person is saying.

As for the IPCC Stockwell Discipline Review, that again is available to read, here. And it is clear that the reason that it went nowhere is that no NEW evidence could be found against the police, and the IPCC was restricted to looking only at new evidence. I quote
"6. This document is restricted to an assessment ofwhether any new evidence has emerged that would justify the bringing of disciplinary charges against any individual officer. It does not deal with the organisational failures that occurred on the day Mr de Menezes died and I acknowledge it cannot adequately address the distress and anger Mr de Menezes' family rightly feel."

That first link also deals with the inquest. The inquest jury was denied the opportunity of deciding that the killing was unlawful and they had the choice of deciding only that it was lawful or of returning an open verdict, which may perhaps indicate that they didn't believe that it was lawful. No comment from me on that, except to say that they heard the evidence and I didn't. And neither did you.

 

[norters]

Unarmed teenager shot dead by police in St Louis with hands in the air. That kind of thing WOULD happen here if police were routinely armed. That is why it can never be allowed to happen.

 

[Bernie174]

Hugh
Evidence given at any judicial hearing is the recollections of the person giving that evidence. Person A very often does not recall the same thing as person B. As an example if you read the Stockwell report, not one of the non police witnesses on the tube gives the same evidence as any other, it does not mean that any of them are lying. Juries chose to make the decisions they do, it does not mean they consider a witness to be lying.
It's not unknown for them to 'guess' at evidence like they did in Duggan, when in spit of no evidence on it, they ruled that he somehow checked the gun away as he got out of the vehicle.
An Inquest is as I said, it does not and cannot apportion blame, it is not a criminal or civil court, so no it matters not very much in the great scheme of things.

Mod Edit: Personal insult removed

The document you rely on is the 'final' document. Discipline action was looked at initially, and no evidence was found to justify it. At the end of all proceedings they looked again for anything new that would change that decision. There was none, if thats not obvious to you, then it's no surprise you can't grasp the more complicated bits of all this.

Organizational changes are a matter for changes in Policy and process, they are not something that results in discipline.

"The inquest jury was denied the opportunity of deciding that the killing was unlawful and they had the choice of deciding only that it was lawful or of returning an open verdict, "

No poo sherlock! What did I say above?

"They could not return 'unlawful killing' because that option was not open to them in view of the verdict in the H&S Case, and the comments made by that Jury."

The unlawful killing verdict would have been inconstant with the Criminal verdict and comments by the Jury in that. Irrespective of whether the Jury could and may have returned that as a verdict, it matters not one jot.

Your few sensible points are all addressed by the report, as I said, no one needs to be 'apologist'. Most of the rest are just silly allegations with no supporting evidence.

 

[Bernie174]

"Unarmed teenager shot dead by police in St Louis with hands in the air. That kind of thing WOULD happen here if police were routinely armed. That is why it can never be allowed to happen."

Police here already are, and it hasn't happened.

 

[boyfalldown]

Hugh
Evidence given at any judicial hearing is the recollections of the person giving that evidence. Person A very often does not recall the same thing as person B. As an example if you read the Stockwell report, not one of the non police witnesses on the tube gives the same evidence as any other, it does not mean that any of them are lying. Juries chose to make the decisions they do, it does not mean they consider a witness to be lying.
It's not unknown for them to 'guess' at evidence like they did in Duggan, when in spit of no evidence on it, they ruled that he somehow checked the gun away as he got out of the vehicle.
An Inquest is as I said, it does not and cannot apportion blame, it is not a criminal or civil court, so no it matters not very much in the great scheme of things.

Bernie, the jury were very clear in their verdict they felt they had being lied to. Does the fact that you think a corners court 'doesn't matter' means its OK to lie to it?

 

[Bernie174]

Actually Hugh they were not.

You were not in the Jury room and so not entitled to give that opinion. Like I said, recollections are just that, they often clash. It does not mean that one side or another has lied. It means that humans recollect different things.
However, on

point one. "Did C1 shout Armed Police". They ruled no, he said yes. They were not there, so the fact they ruled the way they did is not conclusive evidence he did or didn't. It's their opinion, on the balance of probability.
Does it matter though if he did. Answer no. There is no requirement to do so in law.

Point 2, they found that he did stand.

Point 3. Did he move towards the officers. Same thing applies as point one.

All of these points are judged on balance of probability.

The rest of their points were organizational, and not relevant to justification for shooting.

At no point have the Jury said they found they were lied too. The Inquest verdict is here. Read it.

http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/j7-jea...est/de-menezes-inquest-transcripts/dec_12.pdf

You are assuming they consider they were lied too, I accept that, but all that is is opinion.

Moving on, if there was evidence of Police lying, then they would have been charged with Perverting the Course of Justice. They were not. The reason being there's no evidence of it. If your opinion held any weight that would be the only outcome.

 

[boyfalldown]

Actually Hugh they were not.

Whatever you say Bernie, theres no way we'll agree on this and I see little point in going round in circles. I will say this though, over the last few years my opinions of the police have changed. From being very anti them, and having a complaint against the Met upheld in 2008 to broadly supportive. Whilst I realise it doesn't matter to you the constant apologists and tiny nit picking are probably the single biggest thing that erodes that

 

[Marc]

Yet another thread turns personal, enough already!