Azelle Rodney Murder Charge
Discussion
La Liga said:
The statutory minimum is 5 years (if 18 and over) unless there are exceptional circumstances for possession.
Out in 2½ years compared to a minimum of 30 years for killing an officer with a firearm in the line of their dutyLa Liga said:
What do you think they were doing?
I find you the only BiB worth having a discussion with on here and I am sure you understand my point.Dale Cregan's plan was to kill police that day. That doesnt make the WPCs murders any less evil, infact it makes it worse but my question was: when was the last time a criminal shot and killed a police officer who was trying to prevent the criminal from carrying out a crime.
This was asked to point out that the overwhelming majority of criminals would rather be done for possession than killing an officer.
Of course they would. There's no doubt few criminals would ever go as far as to shoot a police officer. They want to be in possession of a firearm as little as possible. That's probably part of the reason so few times weapons are discharged.
My understanding is that the 5 years (which is both mandatory and the minimum) means they would be in prison for that amount of time and are not subject to early plea discount or being released early. I could be wrong though.
My understanding is that the 5 years (which is both mandatory and the minimum) means they would be in prison for that amount of time and are not subject to early plea discount or being released early. I could be wrong though.
Eclassy said:
my question was: when was the last time a criminal shot and killed a police officer who was trying to prevent the criminal from carrying out a crime.
This is a list of recent deaths caused by shootings. It does not cover those times where police officers have been shot at and either were injured but not fatally, or the shot missed. These survivors should, of course, be counted in any argument.http://www.itv.com/news/anglia/topic/pc-ian-dibell...
Ian Dibell, GM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Sharon_Bes...
Sharon Beshenivsky
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2910615/27...
Ian Nigel Broadhurst
No easy to find record of: Glen Goodman killed and Alexander Kelly shot near Tadcaster following a stop.
Not recent but a chap I knew and worked with two or three times:
http://www.essex.police.uk/memorial/roll-of-honour...
Bill Bishop
Oh eclassy do f
k off.
I knew before I read this thread that you would be skewing the facts onto some tangent to suit the fact you hate the police because some bloke tapped your window and didn't they arrest him.
If youre such an expert join up and show us all how it should be done, you put yourself in harms way for the benefit of other people and make split second decisions without your usual accomplices of a keyboard and google to trawl through.
You are pathetic
k off.I knew before I read this thread that you would be skewing the facts onto some tangent to suit the fact you hate the police because some bloke tapped your window and didn't they arrest him.
If youre such an expert join up and show us all how it should be done, you put yourself in harms way for the benefit of other people and make split second decisions without your usual accomplices of a keyboard and google to trawl through.
You are pathetic
Edited by Greendubber on Saturday 4th July 09:09
Eric The Camel said:
Serious question.
The role of an armed response officer seems to me to be a poisoned chalice.
You put yourself in harms way, have to make split second decisions that will then be judged by people with the luxury of hindsight who aren't staring down the barrel of a loaded gun and you leave yourself open to being hounded by the tabloids.
IIRC It's a voluntary role, so what happens if the armed officers all decide to call it a day and hand in their guns? Do we as a country just shrug our shoulders and accept the fact that only criminals will be armed?
I wouldn't worry, Pistonheads seems to have an army of crack shots with perfect judgement.The role of an armed response officer seems to me to be a poisoned chalice.
You put yourself in harms way, have to make split second decisions that will then be judged by people with the luxury of hindsight who aren't staring down the barrel of a loaded gun and you leave yourself open to being hounded by the tabloids.
IIRC It's a voluntary role, so what happens if the armed officers all decide to call it a day and hand in their guns? Do we as a country just shrug our shoulders and accept the fact that only criminals will be armed?
I'm sure they'll step in and protect us all.
Eric The Camel said:
Serious question.
The role of an armed response officer seems to me to be a poisoned chalice.
You put yourself in harms way, have to make split second decisions that will then be judged by people with the luxury of hindsight who aren't staring down the barrel of a loaded gun and you leave yourself open to being hounded by the tabloids.
IIRC It's a voluntary role, so what happens if the armed officers all decide to call it a day and hand in their guns? Do we as a country just shrug our shoulders and accept the fact that only criminals will be armed?
I have no idea but people will always volunteer to do it. There was some suggestion where I am to 'work to rule' but things would go tits up rapidly if we did. Cops didn't join to let the bad guys win which is why they decide to put themselves there to do a job that needs doing and a job that the public expect us to do. The role of an armed response officer seems to me to be a poisoned chalice.
You put yourself in harms way, have to make split second decisions that will then be judged by people with the luxury of hindsight who aren't staring down the barrel of a loaded gun and you leave yourself open to being hounded by the tabloids.
IIRC It's a voluntary role, so what happens if the armed officers all decide to call it a day and hand in their guns? Do we as a country just shrug our shoulders and accept the fact that only criminals will be armed?
Prosecutions of police officers who shoot people are very rare indeed. Every shooting by a police officer must be investigated closely, but almost all are found to be justified when examined. The alternative would be to allow too much leeway to armed agents of the State. I think we have the balance about right.
Breadvan72 said:
Prosecutions of police officers who shoot people are very rare indeed. Every shooting by a police officer must be investigated closely, but almost all are found to be justified when examined. The alternative would be to allow too much leeway to armed agents of the State. I think we have the balance about right.
Do you think 10 years is right though?The thing I hate is the media in cases like this. People being blasted in the press and by people who don't have a clue what they are talking about..... This forum is a prime example
It long ago became deeply unfashionable to obtain reliable information about a subject before voicing an opinion on it, and this Forum contains daily excellent displays of ignorance, prejudice and rantiness by the deeply uninformed but highly opinionated. The delay in this case appears to have been caused partly by a series of inquiries, including one in which a High Court Judge took a view opposite to that taken by the jury. I agree that it was not at all good that it took the case ten years to be determined.
Breadvan72 said:
Prosecutions of police officers who shoot people are very rare indeed. Every shooting by a police officer must be investigated closely, but almost all are found to be justified when examined. The alternative would be to allow too much leeway to armed agents of the State. I think we have the balance about right.
There was (is?) a feeling that the criteria for charging officers is lower than that of the general public. As I've mentioned before, I had sight of the disclosure when a number of officers were charged and prosecuted in relation to a fatal shooting. I was told that the defence briefs all agreed that the matter would not go to trial as there was insufficient evidence. The judge at one pre-trial hearing told at least two defendants that the trial would be dismissed without the charges being read. And was proved correct.
Yet the charges were laid and the prosecutions commenced, right up to the opening day of the trial.
Yet the officers were under the threat of imprisonment - their careers had already been destroyed - for years.
I think the balance was wrong and, going by this trial, might well still be.
The police are entitled to be judged on the same criteria as other members of the public. There is evidence that this might not be so.
On the matter of officers refusing to hold a 'ticket' for firearms, this is seen as a big risk by those in charge. The number of officers authorised has dropped considerably in some forces.
The Mets did more or less go on strike in the late 70s. Officers in central refused to take out cars on patrol on early turn. I was in a City of London mobile unit and we covered a massive area for them for the couple of hours they threw their teddies out of their prams.
There was a call for government action against the officers, the action was illegal, but there was the fear of other forces, not to mention the rest of the Met, would take action.
Whether this was instrumental in the later pay rise is a moot point but there is little doubt that the first serious action for some 80 odd years did put a certain fear into the government.
This concerns me
This officer has given 33 years of his life to the service of the people of this country and for a large part of those 33 years he has been involved in the forefront of the fight against very violent and dangerous people.
Police firearms units and in particular The Met have many different levels from basic AFO through to those in the special firearms teams whose skills levels are very high.
These individuals are very serious and dedicated people, not a few of whom are drawn from previous military service in a simiiliar field.
By naming this officer and allowing details of some of the operations he has been involved in over many years it will not be hard for individuals or groups to track and trace him. There have over the 30 years been many many interdictions by the met against criminal gangs, terrorist organisations et al, most of which did not end in shootings or even in the public domain, but put many very dangerous and connected people in prison for a very long time.
I feel that he probably isn't worried about the family of a small time drug dealer knowing his identity but I think he and his former bosses must be very concerned about real threats posed by others to his safety
I think the state has done him a massive disservice in naming him and allowing his previous exploits into the public domain and may have put his life in serious jeapardy
There is a reason why some state operatives are granted anonymity, a very real reason.
This officer has given 33 years of his life to the service of the people of this country and for a large part of those 33 years he has been involved in the forefront of the fight against very violent and dangerous people.
Police firearms units and in particular The Met have many different levels from basic AFO through to those in the special firearms teams whose skills levels are very high.
These individuals are very serious and dedicated people, not a few of whom are drawn from previous military service in a simiiliar field.
By naming this officer and allowing details of some of the operations he has been involved in over many years it will not be hard for individuals or groups to track and trace him. There have over the 30 years been many many interdictions by the met against criminal gangs, terrorist organisations et al, most of which did not end in shootings or even in the public domain, but put many very dangerous and connected people in prison for a very long time.
I feel that he probably isn't worried about the family of a small time drug dealer knowing his identity but I think he and his former bosses must be very concerned about real threats posed by others to his safety
I think the state has done him a massive disservice in naming him and allowing his previous exploits into the public domain and may have put his life in serious jeapardy
There is a reason why some state operatives are granted anonymity, a very real reason.
Breadvan72 said:
Prosecutions of police officers who shoot people are very rare indeed. Every shooting by a police officer must be investigated closely, but almost all are found to be justified when examined. The alternative would be to allow too much leeway to armed agents of the State. I think we have the balance about right.
I certainly agree the law is sound and the general balance is right, but I echo the comments suggesting the time frames aren't always sound. It may be a wider point about the time investigations, enquiries and appeals take per se, but there have been several fatal incidents where it has taken a long time to get to the conclusion. Stanley is another example that took a lot of time, for various reasons, before the eventual conclusion were reached (IIRC you have a fair bit of knowledge about that one). Earthdweller said:
This concerns me
This officer has given 33 years of his life to the service of the people of this country and for a large part of those 33 years he has been involved in the forefront of the fight against very violent and dangerous people.
Police firearms units and in particular The Met have many different levels from basic AFO through to those in the special firearms teams whose skills levels are very high.
These individuals are very serious and dedicated people, not a few of whom are drawn from previous military service in a simiiliar field.
By naming this officer and allowing details of some of the operations he has been involved in over many years it will not be hard for individuals or groups to track and trace him. There have over the 30 years been many many interdictions by the met against criminal gangs, terrorist organisations et al, most of which did not end in shootings or even in the public domain, but put many very dangerous and connected people in prison for a very long time.
I feel that he probably isn't worried about the family of a small time drug dealer knowing his identity but I think he and his former bosses must be very concerned about real threats posed by others to his safety
I think the state has done him a massive disservice in naming him and allowing his previous exploits into the public domain and may have put his life in serious jeapardy
There is a reason why some state operatives are granted anonymity, a very real reason.
Very well put. The media and public fascination when the police are perceived to have done something wrong will unfortunately always be a lot more intense than incidents which are resolved without issue, which are the vast majority. This officer has given 33 years of his life to the service of the people of this country and for a large part of those 33 years he has been involved in the forefront of the fight against very violent and dangerous people.
Police firearms units and in particular The Met have many different levels from basic AFO through to those in the special firearms teams whose skills levels are very high.
These individuals are very serious and dedicated people, not a few of whom are drawn from previous military service in a simiiliar field.
By naming this officer and allowing details of some of the operations he has been involved in over many years it will not be hard for individuals or groups to track and trace him. There have over the 30 years been many many interdictions by the met against criminal gangs, terrorist organisations et al, most of which did not end in shootings or even in the public domain, but put many very dangerous and connected people in prison for a very long time.
I feel that he probably isn't worried about the family of a small time drug dealer knowing his identity but I think he and his former bosses must be very concerned about real threats posed by others to his safety
I think the state has done him a massive disservice in naming him and allowing his previous exploits into the public domain and may have put his life in serious jeapardy
There is a reason why some state operatives are granted anonymity, a very real reason.
It isn't the first and sadly won't be the last time it happens. As long as certain members of public have access to firearms, the police will, very rarely, have to discharge theirs. It's not an enviable position to be in - I and a few others on my department have turned down the chance to work on the ARV's for this reason.
Derek Smith said:
Yet the officers were under the threat of imprisonment - their careers had already been destroyed - for years.
Derek, I respect your experience, but is this quote true - were the careers of unconvicted officers really destroyed before trial?.If so it is an uncontestably great wrong and if you have the details of such, I would be willing to help campaign for redress for these folk.
jimreed said:
Derek, I respect your experience, but is this quote true - were the careers of unconvicted officers really destroyed before trial?.
If so it is an uncontestably great wrong and if you have the details of such, I would be willing to help campaign for redress for these folk.
Thank you for that. I am obliged. You have mail.If so it is an uncontestably great wrong and if you have the details of such, I would be willing to help campaign for redress for these folk.
Regards,
Derek
Breadvan72 said:
It long ago became deeply unfashionable to obtain reliable information about a subject before voicing an opinion on it, and this Forum contains daily excellent displays of ignorance, prejudice and rantiness by the deeply uninformed but highly opinionated.
You took the words right out of my mouth.According to The Sun yesterday the officer got a £5,000 pay out after a senior officer once said to him 'I always wanted to meet The Met's serial killer'.
I couldn't find Clarkson's column in The Sun, and was amazed that they didn't know the name of Karen Danczuk's cat, so another case of dodgy journalism and people, not just the press, not doing their research or knowing their onions.
I couldn't find Clarkson's column in The Sun, and was amazed that they didn't know the name of Karen Danczuk's cat, so another case of dodgy journalism and people, not just the press, not doing their research or knowing their onions.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff