GMP CC to be prosecuted for H&S breaches after man shot
Discussion
If I were to accept whatever it is you're specifically meaning, surely the unique few examples we can sight are so because they stand out so from the norm? It's like the imperfect 'exception that proves the rule'.
Rovinghawk said:
They are subject to the same rules but have dodgy pathologists appointed by the home office (their employer)
'They' planned to have a 'dodgy' pathologist - the first one ever in history? You are aware other criminal matters sometimes fall flat because of mistakes and experts who turn out to be not quite so? Rovinghawk said:
and don't get any criminal conviction whatsoever for what we all know happened
And got the pesky jury in on it too! La Liga said:
If I were to accept whatever it is you're specifically meaning, surely the unique few examples we can sight are so because they stand out so from the norm? It's like the imperfect 'exception that proves the rule'.
I might accept 'exception that illustrates the usual'.Judges' summing up normally gives the jury a clear idea of what's expected, and sufficient doubt can be created by dodgy pathology (be fair- it was dodgy as hell) that 'beyond reasonable doubt' won't happen.
But we digress................
La Liga said:
He went to Crown Court charged with manslaughter then was dismissed for gross misconduct.
"Planes are a very safe way to travel - but one once crashed therefore that undermines your argument."
A perfect example of why single events and anecdotal evidence are not very useful indicators."Planes are a very safe way to travel - but one once crashed therefore that undermines your argument."
Zeeky said:
If the Police are subject to the same laws as everyone else why are they not prosecuted for possession of firearms in public places? The Police are subject to very different laws than the public.
It's an interesting point.Technically, it's the same laws, but those laws allow the police to carry guns.
You're talking about different allowances and restrictions within those laws.
There are laws about how and when police can carry firearms.
Just as there are laws about how and when mops can carry firearms.
Zeeky said:
If the Police are subject to the same laws as everyone else why are they not prosecuted for possession of firearms in public places? The Police are subject to very different laws than the public.
Perhaps because the s.19 of the Firearms Act 1968 makes it an offence to possess a firearm in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse; and the Police have lawful authority? Cat
The above comments are simply another way of stating that the Police are subject to the rule of law as the rest of us. That is not the same as claiming that laws apply equally to everyone. If the laws do not apply equally to everyone why should the Police expect to be treated equally under those laws when it suits them?
That isn't to say that the Police should not have rights but that it isn't self-evident that those rights should be the same as everyone else's. Greater power might deserve greater responsibility.
That isn't to say that the Police should not have rights but that it isn't self-evident that those rights should be the same as everyone else's. Greater power might deserve greater responsibility.
Zeeky said:
If the Police are subject to the same laws as everyone else why are they not prosecuted for possession of firearms in public places? The Police are subject to very different laws than the public.
Eh ? Are you a lawyer Zeeky ?This is a rather peculiar statement - particularly from someone who professes to be legally trained.
Police are subject to the same laws as everyone else, but the law provides for lawful authority and exemptions for police in certain circumstances.
Zeeky said:
If the Police are subject to the same laws as everyone else why are they not prosecuted for possession of firearms in public places? The Police are subject to very different laws than the public.
Same laws, some exemptions. PACE would be a better example. You know what context this is within. It's about everyone going through the same process which leads or doesn't lead to a criminal prosecution. I have no evidence the CPS do anything other than this, other than a few questionable evidentially-based examples where I've seen police officers prosecuted in circumstances I'd not expect an MOP to be (although this observation could easy have bias so I don't add too much weight to it).
Zeeky said:
That isn't to say that the Police should not have rights but that it isn't self-evident that those rights should be the same as everyone else's. Greater power might deserve greater responsibility.
They should when it comes to seeing whether or not a prosecution should be undertaken, at least with the evidential stage. I think most police officers accept that the public interest is higher with them, but they expect there to be a realistic prospect of conviction if they are to be prosecuted, as with everyone else. Remember I've gone down this line because someone suggested that all police fatal shootings should result in Crown Court trials per se, regardless of the circumstances. We're not arguing intellectual finesse here, just basic human rights with someone who thinks they are championing them and justice by disregarding them for an identifiable group.
Devil2575 said:
La Liga said:
He went to Crown Court charged with manslaughter then was dismissed for gross misconduct.
"Planes are a very safe way to travel - but one once crashed therefore that undermines your argument."
A perfect example of why single events and anecdotal evidence are not very useful indicators."Planes are a very safe way to travel - but one once crashed therefore that undermines your argument."
Unfortunately (in these circumstances), we're designed to associate and over-estimate the probability of events which are brought to our attention in the manner and way in which they are. Rather than people correctly recognise the reason such events get such attention and is because they are such an extreme minority, the irrationally and unjustly extrapolate them and colour the norm.
The plane example is ideal as it's generally free from agenda, yet at the same time most of us can tap into the irrational fear of flying.
La Liga said:
Rovinghawk said:
La Liga said:
Using it as an example as to how a police officer under investigation doesn't go through the same process and decision making is a little far fetched.
In that case, please explain the investigation into the Fed Rep 3.http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/ipcc-disagrees-finding...
Rovinghawk said:
La Liga said:
Rovinghawk said:
La Liga said:
Using it as an example as to how a police officer under investigation doesn't go through the same process and decision making is a little far fetched.
In that case, please explain the investigation into the Fed Rep 3.http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/ipcc-disagrees-finding...
You were using Harwood as an example of the process / decision-making being different - a criminal matter, which is where I believe the CPS decision-making is at least equal (if not a little keen to prosecute police officers for "transparency"). You can't then use something that isn't comparable.
La Liga said "Yeah, you have great ideas like having people go to court without any evidence to be tried for murder. What a champion of justice..."
If the evidence does not convince a jury to convict then so be it. At least justice has been SEEN to be done. My argument is that the public interest is better served in open court than in the secrecy that presently exists.
If the evidence does not convince a jury to convict then so be it. At least justice has been SEEN to be done. My argument is that the public interest is better served in open court than in the secrecy that presently exists.
So you think that any Police officer who shoots someone in the line of duty should be processed through the court system?
Good luck getting anyone to become an armed Police officer.
"We want you to carry and gun and if neccessary shoot someone, but if you do then you'll be up in court in front of a jury"
What a stupid suggestion.
Good luck getting anyone to become an armed Police officer.
"We want you to carry and gun and if neccessary shoot someone, but if you do then you'll be up in court in front of a jury"
What a stupid suggestion.
Snowboy said "What secrecy?
It all totally visible and open to public discussion.
Otherwise we wouldn't be talking about."
What planet are you on?
Since 1995 a total of fifty-five officers have opened fire on and killed thirty-three mops. OK, it can be argued that if you brandish a weapon you justifiably run the risk of being shot. However nine of those thirty-three were unarmed.
To the best of my knowledge the last time a police officer was successfully prosecuted for the death of somebody in custody was in 1969, Two police officers were found guilty of assault and sentenced to a few months in prison.
There have been over 1,000 deaths in custody since then but not a single successful prosecution against any police officer involved in these deaths, despite several verdicts of unlawful killing.
These verdicts came only after years of campaigning and legal challenges by the families of those who died.
It all totally visible and open to public discussion.
Otherwise we wouldn't be talking about."
What planet are you on?
Since 1995 a total of fifty-five officers have opened fire on and killed thirty-three mops. OK, it can be argued that if you brandish a weapon you justifiably run the risk of being shot. However nine of those thirty-three were unarmed.
To the best of my knowledge the last time a police officer was successfully prosecuted for the death of somebody in custody was in 1969, Two police officers were found guilty of assault and sentenced to a few months in prison.
There have been over 1,000 deaths in custody since then but not a single successful prosecution against any police officer involved in these deaths, despite several verdicts of unlawful killing.
These verdicts came only after years of campaigning and legal challenges by the families of those who died.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff