Azelle Rodney Murder Charge

[Elroy Blue]

Eclassy said:

I personally believe this policeman was trigger happy and his record shows that. I dont know what the stats are but I believe the majority of armed officers never fire their weapons in anger while serving yet this one officer killed three and injured 1.

Our criminal justice system has faults. One of them is that someone like you may end up on a jury.

[Eclassy]

In as much as I dislike the police, I have nothing but respect for the officers who choose to carry weapons and confront danger to keep us safe.

There are videos of the UK police confronting machete and knife wielding people without killing them. I refer back to the officers who attended Lee Rigby's murder. They knew a man had been killed, they knew the suspects had weapons and the they were attacked by the suspects.

In spite of all this, they only used their weapons when it was absoluely necessary and managed not to kill the suap. These are the real heroes who joined and accept that they would be exposed to some danger.

This policeman would still have shot whoever was in the back of the car even if they had stopped a wrong vehicle. IMHO He shot based on information he had, not a credible threat at the time.

No policeman should go shooting people dead if there isnt a credible threat. Since PC Beshenevski, When was the last time a criminal shot a policeman during the commission of a crime?

The criminals in this country realise they are better of surrendering than killing an officer. You will be caught and severely punished if you kill an officer in this country. A criminal will sooner accept 2½ years for possession than 30 years for killing an officer.

[Derek Smith]

Eclassy said:

IMHO He shot based on information he had, not a credible threat at the time.

You appear to come to this conclusion without seeing any of the evidence. The jury, which did see all the evidence, came to a different conclusion. I would suggest that your opinion is not humble: I have an entirely different adjective for it.

[anonymous-user]

A crim shot two officers a couple of years ago. A crim kicked a custody officer (non police) to death two days ago. Police shootings are still rare, and always fully scrutinised.

[bitchstewie]

There's a little sentence in the Daily Mail which suggests that there was a judge led inquiry a while back on this that came to a different conclusion which suggested his evidence couldn't be relied on - that does seem a little unusual doesn't it?

I don't think we have police who enjoy killing people, and I'm not sure quite what eclassy is on about with him being "trigger happy" unless killing two armed robbers makes him trigger happy?

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[agtlaw]

Breadvan72 said:

From reports of the evidence at trial, a not guilty verdict is unsurprising.

I called it a year ago.

agtlaw said:

Never heard about this case until today. The inquest website has a number of interesting documents - Gísli Guðjónsson's psychology report is very interesting. I'm for not guilty.

Edited by agtlaw on Wednesday 30th July 18:34

[Eclassy]

Breadvan72 said:

A crim shot two officers a couple of years ago. A crim kicked a custody officer (non police) to death two days ago. Police shootings are still rare, and always fully scrutinised.

If you mean Dale Cregan, that was a trap where he lured the officers. I am talking about shooting a policeman who is trying to prevent a crime.

[Eclassy]

La Liga said:

e was in firearms for 20 years and this was the first time he'd discharged in all that time, over many, many deployments. It only takes one bad decision.

Turns out not.

[Mk3Spitfire]

Eclassy said:

Breadvan72 said:

A crim shot two officers a couple of years ago. A crim kicked a custody officer (non police) to death two days ago. Police shootings are still rare, and always fully scrutinised.

If you mean Dale Cregan, that was a trap where he lured the officers. I am talking about shooting a policeman who is trying to prevent a crime.

What do you think they were doing there in the first place? You fool.

[Eclassy]

Mk3Spitfire said:

What do you think they were doing there in the first place? You fool.

Shame your brains are made of spaghetti. I feel sorry for your mother.

[Mk3Spitfire]

Eclassy said:

Shame your brains are made of spaghetti. I feel sorry for your mother.

[TheProfessor]

All of the shots came from the armed officer who was seated in the near side rear seat of one of the Met cars conducting the hard stop.

There was little if any distance between the cars at the moment both cars came to a halt.

In that situation where there was no egress capability from the rear of the Met car, and based on the Met briefing, the armed officer feared for his life - being on the receiving end of an automatic bust of gunfire from the villains car.

Maybe what this does show is there is a need to reflect on the hard stop tactics used in the future so that fellow officers even in the heat of an operation do not put colleges in such a potentially life threatening situation?

Edited by TheProfessor on Friday 3rd July 18:03

[anonymous-user]

Eclassy said:

La Liga said:

He was in firearms for 20 years and this was the first time he'd discharged in all that time, over many, many deployments. It only takes one bad decision.

Turns out not.

Indeed. He had discharged on three deployments which is exceptionally rare. But then the extreme is more probable to occur with a vast sample size. Once in 1985 where he injured a kidnapper (as reported) and once in 1987 where he shot two armed robbers (where an inquest jury found the killing to the lawful).

Eclassy said:

A criminal will sooner accept 2½ years for possession than 30 years for killing an officer.

The statutory minimum is 5 years (if 18 and over) unless there are exceptional circumstances for possession.

Eclassy said:

If you mean Dale Cregan, that was a trap where he lured the officers. I am talking about shooting a policeman who is trying to prevent a crime.

What do you think they were doing?

[Magog]

La Liga said:

Eclassy said:

La Liga said:

He was in firearms for 20 years and this was the first time he'd discharged in all that time, over many, many deployments. It only takes one bad decision.

Turns out not.

Indeed. He had discharged on three deployments which is exceptionally rare. But then the extreme is more probable to occur with a vast sample size. Once in 1985 where he injured a kidnapper (as reported) and once in 1987 where he shot two armed robbers (where an inquest jury found the killing to the lawful).

Eclassy said:

A criminal will sooner accept 2½ years for possession than 30 years for killing an officer.

The statutory minimum is 5 years (if 18 and over) unless there are exceptional circumstances for possession.

Interesting account of the 1987 shootings here;

http://gihs.gold.ac.uk/gihs34.html#abbatoir

[Elroy Blue]

I was a firearms officer for a good number of years. I saw a colleague be hounded by scumbag press merchant after an incident, , his family followed by them, lies told in the rag they produce (their subsequent retraction made in a tiny column inside). I thought about it and handed my ticket in. It just wasn't worth it. The thought my future freedom could be decided by someone with the mentality of Eclassy and his kind confirms to me I made absolutely the right decision.

[Derek Smith]

bhstewie said:

There's a little sentence in the Daily Mail which suggests that there was a judge led inquiry a while back on this that came to a different conclusion which suggested his evidence couldn't be relied on - that does seem a little unusual doesn't it?

This from memory.

The officer, as of his right, refused to answer certain questions. Therefore, the conclusions of the hearing were marred by the fact that they did not have all the evidence.

The judge stated that there was no time for the officer to make the assumption he was under threat. It would appear, from the jury, he was wrong.

TheProfessor said:

Maybe what this does show is there is a need to reflect on the hard stop tactics used in the future so that fellow officers even in the heat of an operation do not put colleges in such a potentially life threatening situation?

Edited by TheProfessor on Friday 3rd July 18:03

There were a number of recommendations in the report as to future methods. The problem with such non-police generated conclusions has been, at least in my time, that they tend to be too specific. Officers in control are obliged to follow them or else and when the situation demands something different, plans have to include the recommendations.

There was a bank robbery in the late 70s where a career criminal whose conviction was overturned after a media led campaign, which included criminal damage to a cricket pitch about to be used for an international.

True to form, Davis was involved in an armed robbery of a bank in London where shots were fired - in one case a shotgun was pushed into a police car and pointed at the driver. The criminal then pulled the trigger but the safety had engaged after an earlier shot - by both offenders and a police officer, the latter missed.

The police were criticised for allowing the robbery to take place, the suggestion being that they wanted to negate any defence Davis might have availed himself of. There seems little doubt he was acting under legal advice.

So 'hard stops' were started.

Now, it would appear that hard stops are a bad thing.

(I included a bit about Geo. Davis in a book I wrote but a legal bod suggested that I delete it. Well, more than a suggestion actually. It seemed she felt it was unbelievable despite accepting that it was true. Only a lawyer, eh?)

[TheBear]

Mk3Spitfire said:

Eclassy said:

Shame your brains are made of spaghetti. I feel sorry for your mother.

Is that a car window I can hear being wound up very quickly?

[Mk3Spitfire]

TheBear said:

Mk3Spitfire said:

Eclassy said:

Shame your brains are made of spaghetti. I feel sorry for your mother.

Is that a car window I can hear being wound up very quickly?

I struggle not to think about this every time he wines about people using violence...

[Butter Face]

I did have a little chuckle at the point made that there were 3 weapons found, but only one armed and none of them were automatics.



Because that makes it much better :hehe;

Glad the officer finally got cleared, if you get shot because you're an armed from then it's your own goddam fault!

[Eclassy]

At this point it was stated by the police that one of the P.T 17 officers behind P.C Long shouted, "stop armed police" through a loudhailer. Whether or not this warning was given became the subject of much controversy in the days and weeks that followed.

What then occurred was that raider number 1 began to turn his head toward Long who then fired two shots in quick succession with his Browning pistol. Both shots hit the raider in the back and he fell mortally wounded. Alerted by the gunfire, raider number 2 started to turn toward the source of the firing but Long quickly loosed two more shots hitting him in the chest and head. He too dropped to the ground dying.

Realising that he was caught in an ambush the third raider started to bolt from the scene in order to save himself but as he did so P.C Long fired another two shots. The first shot missed its mark and the second hit him in the side with the bullet lodging against his spine. As he ran around the van he was confronted by two P.T 17 officers armed with pump-action shotguns and he raised his arms in surrender.