GMP CC to be prosecuted for H&S breaches after man shot
Discussion
davidball said:
This from the BBC.
“The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, Sir Peter Fahy, is to be prosecuted after an unarmed man was shot dead by an officer.
Sir Peter is accused of failing to discharge a duty under the Health and Safety at Work Act as he is "corporation sole" for the force, the CPS said.
Prosecutors have decided the marksman who killed Mr Grainger on 3 March 2012 should not face charges for murder, manslaughter or misconduct in public office because a jury would be likely to accept he believed his actions were necessary.
A bullet fired by an officer passed through the windscreen and hit Mr Grainger, who was from Bolton.
It later emerged the unarmed father of two had been wrongly suspected of stealing a memory stick containing the names of police informants.”
Why does it take so long for these fatal shootings by police officers to come to court, if indeed they ever do?
Why do the prosecutors not want to let a jury decide?
Why do we have to accept this "he believed his actions were necessary" excuse without hearing the evidence?
Would a member of the public get away with pleading that without having to go to court?
CPS/DPP often take ages to reach a decision.“The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, Sir Peter Fahy, is to be prosecuted after an unarmed man was shot dead by an officer.
Sir Peter is accused of failing to discharge a duty under the Health and Safety at Work Act as he is "corporation sole" for the force, the CPS said.
Prosecutors have decided the marksman who killed Mr Grainger on 3 March 2012 should not face charges for murder, manslaughter or misconduct in public office because a jury would be likely to accept he believed his actions were necessary.
A bullet fired by an officer passed through the windscreen and hit Mr Grainger, who was from Bolton.
It later emerged the unarmed father of two had been wrongly suspected of stealing a memory stick containing the names of police informants.”
Why does it take so long for these fatal shootings by police officers to come to court, if indeed they ever do?
Why do the prosecutors not want to let a jury decide?
Why do we have to accept this "he believed his actions were necessary" excuse without hearing the evidence?
Would a member of the public get away with pleading that without having to go to court?
They have decided there is insufficient evidence to provide a realistic chance of securing a conviction . They often do this.
No-one cares what you think. Whether you 'accept ' it or not is immaterial.
In the unlikely event that a MOP was involved in legally stopping a car load of gangsters at gunpoint, yes. Criminal Law Act on self defence applies to all.
XCP said:
CPS/DPP often take ages to reach a decision.
They have decided there is insufficient evidence to provide a realistic chance of securing a conviction . They often do this.
No-one cares what you think. Whether you 'accept ' it or not is immaterial.
In the unlikely event that a MOP was involved in legally stopping a car load of gangsters at gunpoint, yes. Criminal Law Act on self defence applies to all.
It obviously does not apply to all otherwise the case would be tested in court. As to "no-one" cares about my opinion you seem to think you are omnipotent and know everyone opinions. You need treatment.They have decided there is insufficient evidence to provide a realistic chance of securing a conviction . They often do this.
No-one cares what you think. Whether you 'accept ' it or not is immaterial.
In the unlikely event that a MOP was involved in legally stopping a car load of gangsters at gunpoint, yes. Criminal Law Act on self defence applies to all.
XCP said:
Rovinghawk said:
What reason could they have for not answering questions?
The law. 'you do not have to say anything ...etc...'The same as any other suspect.
My question is to why innocent, blameless individuals would not choose to be fully cooperative. (I accept that their right to silence means I cannot infer guilt from such silence.)
Rovinghawk said:
My question wasn't about their rights.
My question is to why innocent, blameless individuals would not choose to be fully cooperative. (I accept that their right to silence means I cannot infer guilt from such silence.)
Who knows?My question is to why innocent, blameless individuals would not choose to be fully cooperative. (I accept that their right to silence means I cannot infer guilt from such silence.)
I certainly don't. I suspect that their legal advisors would be the ones to ask. But I think it is rather odd to seek to deny police officers the protection that other suspects enjoy.
davidball said:
It obviously does not apply to all otherwise the case would be tested in court. As to "no-one" cares about my opinion you seem to think you are omnipotent and know everyone opinions. You need treatment.
Can I suggest that you learn a little law before commenting? It is clear that you have very little idea what you are talking about.The Criminal Law Act 1967, and various cases since on reasonable force and self defence would be a good start.
As for the value of your opinion, unless you are the DPP, it matters not with regard to this case, what you think. Sorry if that disappoints you, but there we are.
XCP said:
Can I suggest that you learn a little law before commenting? It is clear that you have very little idea what you are talking about.
The Criminal Law Act 1967, and various cases since on reasonable force and self defence would be a good start.
As for the value of your opinion, unless you are the DPP, it matters not with regard to this case, what you think. Sorry if that disappoints you, but there we are.
It does not disappoint me. I am indifferent. I ask questions that reflect my suspicion that there are many forces at work to protect police officers from prosecution and that many injustices i.e. permitting police officers to collude when writing their statements, is a glaring example of this. I note you make no comment on the fairness of allowing police officers to do that whilst making strenuous efforts to prevent members of the public from doing the same.The Criminal Law Act 1967, and various cases since on reasonable force and self defence would be a good start.
As for the value of your opinion, unless you are the DPP, it matters not with regard to this case, what you think. Sorry if that disappoints you, but there we are.
LoonR1 said:
V8 Fettler said:
I wasn't aware that sympathy and empathy were within your skill set.
They aren't. I smiled when Grainger was killed. Felt a bit sorry for the acquaintance but nothing that affected me personally. His situation is somewhat different now though due to the attack. 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.
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.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.
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.
XCP said:
... I think it is rather odd to seek to deny police officers the protection that other suspects enjoy.
Suspects have rights against the State. Agents of the State acting entirely on behalf of the State should have a duty to justify their use of force against the public to the public. The counter argument of course is that if that were the case the extent to which the individual can be punished by the State might also be limited. Zeeky said:
XCP said:
... I think it is rather odd to seek to deny police officers the protection that other suspects enjoy.
Suspects have rights against the State. Zeeky said:
Agents of the State acting entirely on behalf of the State should have a duty to justify their use of force against the public to the public.
They do through the legal system (criminal, civil or coroner).vonhosen said:
Zeeky said:
Agents of the State acting entirely on behalf of the State should have a duty to justify their use of force against the public to the public.
They do through the legal system (criminal, civil or coroner).
Zeeky said:
vonhosen said:
Zeeky said:
Agents of the State acting entirely on behalf of the State should have a duty to justify their use of force against the public to the public.
They do through the legal system (criminal, civil or coroner).They didn't hold back from justifying the use of force in the GMP case or Duggan.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff