GMP CC to be prosecuted for H&S breaches after man shot

[anonymous-user]

Zeeky, I'm not 100% on what your point is now.

The source of this topic is the IPCC complaining officers won't talk to them (without any context or explanation why).

Any conversation with the IPCC, regardless of where the information ends up (civil, criminal, inquiry etc), has the potential to be used criminally.

It's obvious that when this risk exists officers will always present the strongest legal position they can. Anyone sensible person would.

[streaky]

If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear ... isn't that what 'they' say?

Streaky

[vonhosen]

streaky said:

If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear ... isn't that what 'they' say?

Streaky

They're not hiding, they're not saying nothing. They are giving the information in a form that their legal counsel advises.

[V8 Fettler]

LoonR1 said:

V8 Fettler said:

That's empathy that is. Thus the illusion is shattered.

Mankchester should be renamed Murkchester: an environment and culture impenetrable to a Southerner. Memorably, I visited a boozer in Trafford a few years ago, they knew as soon as I walked through the door. I kept myself to myself, ordered a pint by the time-honoured method of pointing. One of the locals then challenged me to something unintelligible but appeared to involve physical contact. I declined and made a hasty retreat, I think she was probably a bouncer.

That or it's a learned reaction based on what others would say.

The rest isn't worth a detailed response, as it's standard fare for southerners to believe they're better than us, when the reality is far from that.

Your Northern chippiness is indeed strong.

In the context of this thread: not better, not worse, but impenetrable. There's clearly a war going on between Northern gangsters and GMP, witness Cregan's luring of GMP officers and use of hand grenades, witness GMP lethal shooting of Grainger where there is no indication that the latter was carrying a firearm. The CPS are flailing, witness the not guilty verdict reached (in 45 minutes) by the jury at the conspiracy trial of Grainger's cronies (conspiracy to rob), that's particularly bizarre, although conspiracy is not the easiest prosecution to win.

It's impenetrable.

[Red Devil]

LoonR1 said:

GC8 said:

It might be you next time. Look what happened to Stephen Waldorf. Its happened more recently too.

You're right. But then I'd have to be a drug dealing gangster with murderous tendencies on my way to an armed robbery for it to realistically happen.

Does 'drug dealing gangster with murderous intentions' apply to, for example:

James Ashley - shot in his own bedroom while unarmed and naked. The aftermath exposed massive failures in intelligence, training and command by Sussex Police.

Harry Stanley - walking home from the pub 'armed' with a table leg in a plastic bag. Challenged from behind and shot when he turned round.

John Shorthouse aged 5 - shot while asleep in his bed. Policeman unaware of sleeping child and weapon discharged because it was not fitted with a safety catch.

One common feature of many shootings of innocent victims is failures in police intelligence and command both of which place armed officers on the ground in a no-win situation. Yet the senior ranks appear Teflon coated and usually end up getting promoted.

[Snowboy]

There are a lot of armed police encounters every day.
Loads. I can think of about a dozen on the few years involving people I know.

None of those ended up in a police shooting.
They all ended relatively well.

There are some mistakes. These tend to be talked about a lot in the press. It's right and proper they are investigated and that people learn from what happened. It may be a cliche, but it's true.
Sometimes people are fired, sometimes not, it depends on the situation.

Other times people are shot and it's justified. There is an investigation, which is right and proper, but it finds that the police rid the right thing and the shooting was the right course of action.

As a society, we need to accept the latter outcome is OK. Sometimes the armed police will shoot criminals dead because it's part of their job to do that.

[Derek Smith]

Red Devil said:

James Ashley - shot in his own bedroom while unarmed and naked. The aftermath exposed massive failures in intelligence, training and command by Sussex Police.

Something I know about.

I saw the disclosure on the case against a couple of colleagues with regards the 'massive failures. The prosecution seemed to be based on the same information that the enquiry reported and well before it went to court a judge said there was no case to answer.

Further, the defendants in the case decided to take civil action against someone whose information given to the enquiry and much of which their conclusion was based on. However, they were told that even if, as they thought, this person lied for political reasons, the conclusions were privileged.

The officers responsible for the massive failures in intelligence and command followed standard operating procedures dictated by the Home Office. As for training, not much changed afterwards although officers now protect themselves more so that even when those with a major role to play in any enquiry who will be rewarded after it, despite being shown to be economical with the truth, will not be able to ruin their lives.

There were errors, of course there were, as there are in any operation of the type as officers cannot know all the details, but this case was generally well run.

Due to the way the enquiry was run, no lessons were learned. One recommendation had been followed.

So, in short, you are wrong but then you are basing your conclusions on press reports and the conclusions of the enquiry which were based, in some instances, on made up information.

I feel certain that all the other instances the press has been fair and accurate in their reports. And the enquiries came to a conclusion that was spot on.

I met a person who was heavily criticised in the report of the Lawrence Enquiry. Yet what this person was criticised for was forced on them by 'circumstances' out of their control. These circs were reported to senior officers who were unable to resolves them. When I asked this officer what they had put in their statement they said that they gave no evidence to it in any way.

So one conclusion at least was based on guesswork.

[Red Devil]

Derek Smith said:

Red Devil said:

James Ashley - shot in his own bedroom while unarmed and naked. The aftermath exposed massive failures in intelligence, training and command by Sussex Police.

Something I know about.

I saw the disclosure on the case against a couple of colleagues with regards the 'massive failures. The prosecution seemed to be based on the same information that the enquiry reported and well before it went to court a judge said there was no case to answer.

Further, the defendants in the case decided to take civil action against someone whose information given to the enquiry and much of which their conclusion was based on. However, they were told that even if, as they thought, this person lied for political reasons, the conclusions were privileged.

The officers responsible for the massive failures in intelligence and command followed standard operating procedures dictated by the Home Office. As for training, not much changed afterwards although officers now protect themselves more so that even when those with a major role to play in any enquiry who will be rewarded after it, despite being shown to be economical with the truth, will not be able to ruin their lives.

There were errors, of course there were, as there are in any operation of the type as officers cannot know all the details, but this case was generally well run.

Due to the way the enquiry was run, no lessons were learned. One recommendation had been followed.

So, in short, you are wrong but then you are basing your conclusions on press reports and the conclusions of the enquiry which were based, in some instances, on made up information.

I take considerable exception to your statement that my conclusions are based on press reports. You have no evidence on which to make such an assumption. I thought that police officers (even retired ones) were supposed to be above that sort of thing.

Which enquiry are you referring to, Wilding (supervised by the PCA) on the shooting, or Hoddinott on the conduct of senior officers? The Chief Constable of Sussex and the county Police Authority refused to allow either report to be released. Why was that if they had nothing to hide? As far as I know, no inquest was ever held either.

Or do you mean the subsequent report produced by the Police Authority at the request of John Denham the Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs? Or perhaps the HMIC report on the force's firearms capability which made 26 recommendations, all of which were accepted? Possibly even the wider HMIC performance inspection which candidly reported on the damage to the operational effectiveness of the force which followed the shooting?

Are you able to tell us about the made up information you refer to and where it came from?

Derek Smith said:

I feel certain that all the other instances the press has been fair and accurate in their reports. And the enquiries came to a conclusion that was spot on.

I met a person who was heavily criticised in the report of the Lawrence Enquiry. Yet what this person was criticised for was forced on them by 'circumstances' out of their control. These circs were reported to senior officers who were unable to resolves them. When I asked this officer what they had put in their statement they said that they gave no evidence to it in any way.

So one conclusion at least was based on guesswork.

I didn't mention Lawrence, so I'm not sure why you have. The only point I can take from what you say is that senior officers couldn't (or wouldn't) deal with the issue(s). Why am I not surprised? More avoidance tactics by those at the top of the food chain who seem to be predisposed to abdicating any responsibility?

It's those on the front line I have sympathy with. Lions led by donkeys?

[Zeeky]

vonhosen said:

Zeeky said:

Providing a defence is not justifying one's actions. The prosecution need to prove the killing was not justified.

That is why I don't agree with your assertion. You give a meaning to justification that isn't consistent with a criminal prosecution.

I've repeatedly said not just criminal, but coroner's & civil too.

What's the difference in terms of justification of a homicide?

[XCP]

V8 Fettler said:

That's empathy that is. Thus the illusion is shattered.

Mankchester should be renamed Murkchester: an environment and culture impenetrable to a Southerner. Memorably, I visited a boozer in Trafford a few years ago, they knew as soon as I walked through the door. I kept myself to myself, ordered a pint by the time-honoured method of pointing. One of the locals then challenged me to something unintelligible but appeared to involve physical contact. I declined and made a hasty retreat, I think she was probably a bouncer.

I had a similar experience in South Wales. made the mistake of going into a boozer in Cross Keys on New Years Eve.

[vonhosen]

Zeeky said:

vonhosen said:

Zeeky said:

Providing a defence is not justifying one's actions. The prosecution need to prove the killing was not justified.

That is why I don't agree with your assertion. You give a meaning to justification that isn't consistent with a criminal prosecution.

I've repeatedly said not just criminal, but coroner's & civil too.

What's the difference in terms of justification of a homicide?

The justification is that you felt it necessary in order to deal with a perceived immediate threat to your or another's life & that your response was proportionate to that perceived immediate threat. That justification is either satisfactory in the attendant circumstances or it isn't.

[Zeeky]

La Liga said:

Zeeky, I'm not 100% on what your point is now.

The source of this topic is the IPCC complaining officers won't talk to them (without any context or explanation why).

Any conversation with the IPCC, regardless of where the information ends up (civil, criminal, inquiry etc), has the potential to be used criminally.

It's obvious that when this risk exists officers will always present the strongest legal position they can. Anyone sensible person would.

It is obvious. I am questioning the appropriateness of the law as it stands in the context of the argument that the burden is on the State to justify its killing of a member of the public. When a Police Officer kills in these circumstances he is not operating as an individual but as an agent of the State. Yet the State hides behind the individual, pretending it is simply a matter for a prosecution to prove there was individual criminal responsibility. That might be appropriate in some circumstances but not generally.

On the one hand the agent of the State is given rights that the public have to protect them from the State when it is clear that the individual was not acting in his capacity of a member of the public. The right not to answer questions. On the other hand he will, for example, be able to collude with other Police Officers to get his story in order before being questioned.

The current legal processes fail the public. They focus too much on the person who pulls the trigger and not enough on identifying persons responsible for the operation that results in the killing.

[vonhosen]

Zeeky said:

La Liga said:

Zeeky, I'm not 100% on what your point is now.

The source of this topic is the IPCC complaining officers won't talk to them (without any context or explanation why).

Any conversation with the IPCC, regardless of where the information ends up (civil, criminal, inquiry etc), has the potential to be used criminally.

It's obvious that when this risk exists officers will always present the strongest legal position they can. Anyone sensible person would.

It is obvious. I am questioning the appropriateness of the law as it stands in the context of the argument that the burden is on the State to justify its killing of a member of the public. When a Police Officer kills in these circumstances he is not operating as an individual but as an agent of the State. Yet the State hides behind the individual, pretending it is simply a matter for a prosecution to prove there was individual criminal responsibility. That might be appropriate in some circumstances but not generally.

On the one hand the agent of the State is given rights that the public have to protect them from the State when it is clear that the individual was not acting in his capacity of a member of the public. The right not to answer questions. On the other hand he will, for example, be able to collude with other Police Officers to get his story in order before being questioned.

The current legal processes fail the public. They focus too much on the person who pulls the trigger and not enough on identifying persons responsible for the operation that results in the killing

Then the H&S case being brought against GMP CC?

[LoonR1]

V8 Fettler said:

Your Northern chippiness is indeed strong.

In the context of this thread: not better, not worse, but impenetrable. There's clearly a war going on between Northern gangsters and GMP, witness Cregan's luring of GMP officers and use of hand grenades, witness GMP lethal shooting of Grainger where there is no indication that the latter was carrying a firearm. The CPS are flailing, witness the not guilty verdict reached (in 45 minutes) by the jury at the conspiracy trial of Grainger's cronies (conspiracy to rob), that's particularly bizarre, although conspiracy is not the easiest prosecution to win.

It's impenetrable.

At least our police are trying to combat the gangsters, yours appear to have given up after the Duggan affair and now apologise to the scum.

[XCP]

A police officer is acting as an individual when he subjects someone to deadly force. That was stressed during my career. The justification depends entirely on the perception of the individual, as it does with any use of force.

It's not like the Army where you can be ordered to open fire, and indeed often are.

[Zeeky]

vonhosen said:

...The justification is that you felt it necessary in order to deal with a perceived immediate threat to your or another's life & that your response was proportionate to that perceived immediate threat. That justification is either satisfactory in the attendant circumstances or it isn't.

That simply states a legal defence to a homicide offence. The focus is on the individual. The failures of others can actually help his defence and the prosecution still needs to disprove the defence.

Everyone involved in the operation, to some extent, has their fingers on the trigger, not just the person who discharges the weapon. Prosecutions for homicide offences are unlikely to be successful in these circumstances.

vonhosen said:

...Then the H&S case being brought against GMP CC?

It's a start but wholly inadequate in holding both the organisation and individuals to account.

[vonhosen]

Zeeky said:

vonhosen said:

...The justification is that you felt it necessary in order to deal with a perceived immediate threat to your or another's life & that your response was proportionate to that perceived immediate threat. That justification is either satisfactory in the attendant circumstances or it isn't.

That simply states a legal defence to a homicide offence. The focus is on the individual. The failures of others can actually help his defence and the prosecution still needs to disprove the defence.

Everyone involved in the operation, to some extent, has their fingers on the trigger, not just the person who discharges the weapon. Prosecutions for homicide offences are unlikely to be successful in these circumstances.

'Justifiable' homicide aka lawfully killing.

Zeeky said:

vonhosen said:

...Then the H&S case being brought against GMP CC?

It's a start but wholly inadequate in holding both the organisation and individuals to account.

What would you propose?

[anonymous-user]

Zeeky said:

La Liga said:

Zeeky, I'm not 100% on what your point is now.

The source of this topic is the IPCC complaining officers won't talk to them (without any context or explanation why).

Any conversation with the IPCC, regardless of where the information ends up (civil, criminal, inquiry etc), has the potential to be used criminally.

It's obvious that when this risk exists officers will always present the strongest legal position they can. Anyone sensible person would.

It is obvious. I am questioning the appropriateness of the law as it stands in the context of the argument that the burden is on the State to justify its killing of a member of the public. When a Police Officer kills in these circumstances he is not operating as an individual but as an agent of the State. Yet the State hides behind the individual, pretending it is simply a matter for a prosecution to prove there was individual criminal responsibility. That might be appropriate in some circumstances but not generally.

On the one hand the agent of the State is given rights that the public have to protect them from the State when it is clear that the individual was not acting in his capacity of a member of the public. The right not to answer questions. On the other hand he will, for example, be able to collude with other Police Officers to get his story in order before being questioned.

The current legal processes fail the public. They focus too much on the person who pulls the trigger and not enough on identifying persons responsible for the operation that results in the killing.

That makes it clearer. I don't see what the alternative when the primary factor of anyone using force, especially serious force, is that it is measured against the law so see if it's justified. That's the most important thing to ensure is correct. I don't see what can be done without compromising that.

Zeeky said:

It's a start but wholly inadequate in holding both the organisation and individuals to account.

I don't think that's the case. By accountability we mean around their "wrongness". We assume there is any, on various burdens, from the example we've been talking about.


The full article is from the BBC link here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-257768...

I wrote this about another part from the article on another topic:

BBC link said:

Deb Coles, from the charity Inquest, said: "I think the failure of police officers to agree to be interviewed is one of the most contentious issues following deaths in police custody.

"It's one that has caused serious concern and frustration among bereaved families.

"If you are a citizen you have the right to silence but an inference can be drawn from it, and you would be pursued. It wouldn't be the same for a police officer who fails to co-operate and just gets on with their life."

The last time I checked PACE and other relevant law, police officers can have negative inferences drawn when interviewed for criminal matters. What does she mean "you would be pursued" - people who don't answer Qs in interview are doing so because it's the strongest legal position for them to be in (if they've taken advice) - why would they be "pursued"? They are decreasing the probability of a prosecution for a start.

This woman has been working in this area since 1990 and gets a fair bit of media coverage, yet doesn't know the fundamentals of criminal law? Or does, and makes misleading comparisons.

[Rovinghawk]

vonhosen said:

They're not hiding, they're not saying nothing. They are giving the information in a form that their legal counsel advises.

Weasel words. They are not answering questions asked; if they are blameless, what is their/their counsel's reason/motivation for this?

[Rovinghawk]

XCP said:

A police officer is acting as an individual when he subjects someone to deadly force. That was stressed during my career. The justification depends entirely on the perception of the individual, as it does with any use of force.

It's not like the Army where you can be ordered to open fire, and indeed often are.

If this is true, how were de Menezes' killers able to use the defence that their intelligence was at fault?

The collective was held to be at fault there but you now claim that the individuals have final responsibility. You can't have it both ways.