Azelle Rodney Murder Charge
Discussion
I expect this is going to go down like a lead balloon with serving firearms officers.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28567569
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28567569
TheForceV4 said:
Just curious,if they are trained marksmen, why was he shot six times???
He wasn't shot with a sniper rifle, he was shot with a handgun.You keep shooting till the target stops.
Should he be prosecuted?
That's up to the CPS. They know a lot more about the story than any of us who have only read about it in the media.
The cop is innocent until proved guilty though.
Magog said:
I expect this is going to go down like a lead balloon with serving firearms officers.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28567569
Why? If there was "no lawful justification" then of course it should be tried in court. Are you suggesting they should be above the law or something?http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28567569
He didn't say that, he said it's probably not going down well with firearms officers. It is probably of concern to them as this is fear all firearms officers have.
The question of "intent" is an interesting one here. There needs to be an intent to kill or cause GBH for murder. Is having the intent to stop (assuming the officer is convincing enough he had only that) comparable with that? Or will they need to consider manslaughter? We'll see how it develops.
The question of "intent" is an interesting one here. There needs to be an intent to kill or cause GBH for murder. Is having the intent to stop (assuming the officer is convincing enough he had only that) comparable with that? Or will they need to consider manslaughter? We'll see how it develops.
Wasnt this the case where a gun was found in the car? In as much as I dislike the police, I do not think the officer who killed this man should be charged. I believe he must have felt the need to shoot for his own safety.
The CPS have all the details though so only them know why they have decided to prosecute. It is weird that the officers who attended the scene of the Lee Rigby murder didnt kill any of the suspects even when they could see weapons and were attacked. I guess some officers are better than others.
In America this will be a non starter, the only justification a policeman needs to kill a member of the public whether innocent or not is to have been in fear of his life and claim there was movement.
The CPS have all the details though so only them know why they have decided to prosecute. It is weird that the officers who attended the scene of the Lee Rigby murder didnt kill any of the suspects even when they could see weapons and were attacked. I guess some officers are better than others.
In America this will be a non starter, the only justification a policeman needs to kill a member of the public whether innocent or not is to have been in fear of his life and claim there was movement.
Lee Rigby's killers were stood up so it was easier to aim at the centre of mass. There is some medical luck they weren't killed (whereas Duggan was hit in the centre off mass and died).
Rodney was in a car with a more limited view so it would have been harder to aim for the centre of mass.
Rodney was in a car with a more limited view so it would have been harder to aim for the centre of mass.
Eclassy said:
In America this will be a non starter, the only justification a policeman needs to kill a member of the public whether innocent or not is to have been in fear of his life and claim there was movement.
And a gunfire between police and criminals is a lot more common resulting far more police deaths. Obviously higher levels of gun ownership is a big part of this but it's hardly something to aspire too when we currently have a rate of gun usage which is far below our peers on the international stage.rpguk said:
Why? If there was "no lawful justification" then of course it should be tried in court. Are you suggesting they should be above the law or something?
No, not at all, but I also don't believe a UK police officer would set out to shoot someone without genuinely fearing for their own or others lives. As I understand it all UK firearms officers are volunteers, some of them, on hearing this news, must be thinking 'there but for the grace of god go I' and seriously considering their positions.Magog said:
rpguk said:
Why? If there was "no lawful justification" then of course it should be tried in court. Are you suggesting they should be above the law or something?
No, not at all, but I also don't believe a UK police officer would set out to shoot someone without genuinely fearing for their own or others lives. As I understand it all UK firearms officers are volunteers, some of them, on hearing this news, must be thinking 'there but for the grace of god go I' and seriously considering their positions.However that scrutiny is incredibly important for public confidence and there should be no fear of scrutiny in an open court.
Put this in perspective: It is rare for UK police to shoot someone (this is a good thing). It is much more rare for the shooting to lead to a prosecution of the officer (this is also a good thing). In most cases where police shoot, they are held to have acted lawfully. Firearms officers need not, therefore, be up in arms (oof) about this, but some may be anyway.
The apparent suggestion that there should never be a prosecution in any case where police shoot someone is unsustainable. In this case, a detailed inquiry presided over by a retired Judge has already concluded that the officer was not justified in opening fire. Now it will be for a jury to take a view on the issue, applying well established principles about the use of force.
The apparent suggestion that there should never be a prosecution in any case where police shoot someone is unsustainable. In this case, a detailed inquiry presided over by a retired Judge has already concluded that the officer was not justified in opening fire. Now it will be for a jury to take a view on the issue, applying well established principles about the use of force.
Magog said:
No, not at all, but I also don't believe a UK police officer would set out to shoot someone without genuinely fearing for their own or others lives. As I understand it all UK firearms officers are volunteers, some of them, on hearing this news, must be thinking 'there but for the grace of god go I' and seriously considering their positions.
A 'genuine' fear for your life shouldnt be enough justification to take anothers life. I jump at the sound of fireworks even when I am prewarned. I will not make a good sniper or firearms officer. A well trained officer shouldnt just shoot someone to death because they feared for their life. There should also be a test of perceived/real threat. Thats why I think this officer shouldnt be charged. He was informed the occupants had a gun (this turned out to be true), and there must have been movement by Azelle which prompted him to shoot. Now compare this to the clown who tasered a blind man from the back in Chorley or the super clown who killed Ian Tomlinson.
In the blind man's case no reasonable person let alone a trained policeman could have thought the man with a stick was a real or perceived threat. It was broad daylight. We all saw the Ian Tomlinson video, absolutely no threat. Thise are the type of useless officers who give the police a bad name. The officer in the case was only doing a job.
What fantasy world do you live in?There are very few examples of situations where a person can be killed and the killer be generally considered to have done the right thing and the death considered a good result.
Armed police shooting a suspect is the only case I can think of outside the military.
The group had a plan to stop the car and were prepared to shoot one or more occupants.
That's pretty much premeditated murder and conspiracy to murder.
Except that as a police operation it's not illegal.
As far as I can see the whole case will pivot on whether the jury believe that the cop thought there was a valid threat to him and his team.
Or
Whether the cop just decided to kill the man based on some other reasons.
It's not a case of who killed him, but more a case of why.
Armed police shooting a suspect is the only case I can think of outside the military.
The group had a plan to stop the car and were prepared to shoot one or more occupants.
That's pretty much premeditated murder and conspiracy to murder.
Except that as a police operation it's not illegal.
As far as I can see the whole case will pivot on whether the jury believe that the cop thought there was a valid threat to him and his team.
Or
Whether the cop just decided to kill the man based on some other reasons.
It's not a case of who killed him, but more a case of why.
tenpenceshort said:
I don't know what the definition of 'good result' is, but anyone fearing they're going to be attacked or who is being attacked could lawfully kill in self defence, subject to their belief the threat was there and the force used to defend was reasonable.
Yep.But in a police stop the police are (sort of) the attackers, and they are going in with weapons drawn and ready.
It's not on the same scale as a victim fighting back.
I'm not arguing either side really; just saying that it's an odd case compared to most other murder cases.
Eclassy said:
A 'genuine' fear for your life shouldnt be enough justification to take anothers life. I jump at the sound of fireworks even when I am prewarned. I will not make a good sniper or firearms officer.
A well trained officer shouldnt just shoot someone to death because they feared for their life. There should also be a test of perceived/real threat. Thats why I think this officer shouldnt be charged. He was informed the occupants had a gun (this turned out to be true), and there must have been movement by Azelle which prompted him to shoot. Now compare this to the clown who tasered a blind man from the back in Chorley or the super clown who killed Ian Tomlinson.
In the blind man's case no reasonable person let alone a trained policeman could have thought the man with a stick was a real or perceived threat. It was broad daylight. We all saw the Ian Tomlinson video, absolutely no threat. Thise are the type of useless officers who give the police a bad name. The officer in the case was only doing a job.
I may have misunderstood you, but it sounds like you think that if you fear you're about to be killed by someone, that isn't enough for you to kill them first? A well trained officer shouldnt just shoot someone to death because they feared for their life. There should also be a test of perceived/real threat. Thats why I think this officer shouldnt be charged. He was informed the occupants had a gun (this turned out to be true), and there must have been movement by Azelle which prompted him to shoot. Now compare this to the clown who tasered a blind man from the back in Chorley or the super clown who killed Ian Tomlinson.
In the blind man's case no reasonable person let alone a trained policeman could have thought the man with a stick was a real or perceived threat. It was broad daylight. We all saw the Ian Tomlinson video, absolutely no threat. Thise are the type of useless officers who give the police a bad name. The officer in the case was only doing a job.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff