Azelle Rodney Murder Charge
Discussion
People seem to forget that a police officer is subject to exactly the same legal principles as to self defence as is any member of the public. The law applies a subjective test as to the perception of risk, not an objective test of reasonable risk perception.
The fact that people forget this tends to spin two ways on these threads.
Those who seem to think of armed police officers as hired murderers apply an impossibly high standard of risk perception, demanding that the person shot be demonstrably (objectively) a threat to the shooter, and may mix this in with fantastical notions such as shooting to wound or shooting to disarm (in reality a police officer shoots to stop the perceived threat).
Those who tend to regard the police as above criticism tend to think that it is sufficient for a police officer to make a judgment(any judgment) that he should shoot, and may colour this view with observations along the lines of "if you don't want to get shot, don't [do whatever it was that led to the shooting] (which might include "don't be on your way to work on the tube") .
As usual, these extreme positions fail to deal with the nuance and complexity of actual shooting scenarios.
The fact that people forget this tends to spin two ways on these threads.
Those who seem to think of armed police officers as hired murderers apply an impossibly high standard of risk perception, demanding that the person shot be demonstrably (objectively) a threat to the shooter, and may mix this in with fantastical notions such as shooting to wound or shooting to disarm (in reality a police officer shoots to stop the perceived threat).
Those who tend to regard the police as above criticism tend to think that it is sufficient for a police officer to make a judgment(any judgment) that he should shoot, and may colour this view with observations along the lines of "if you don't want to get shot, don't [do whatever it was that led to the shooting] (which might include "don't be on your way to work on the tube") .
As usual, these extreme positions fail to deal with the nuance and complexity of actual shooting scenarios.
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.
The law of self defence has been codified. See here:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/4/section...
The law of self defence has been codified. See here:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/4/section...
Edited by agtlaw on Wednesday 30th July 18:34
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.
The law of self defence has been codified. See here:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/4/section...
Do you have a link to the website (I'm lazy and can't be bothered Googling!)?The law of self defence has been codified. See here:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/4/section...
Edited by agtlaw on Wednesday 30th July 18:34
What is an issue with charges against officers who kill/shoot a person on a planned operation is the likelihood of a charge of murder, or in one case I know of murder and manslaughter on the same facts, at a much lower likelihood of a finding of guilt. In certain cases, especially one I've seen the disclosure of, there is little doubt in many people's mind that the charges were brought after public and political pressure on the CPS to lower the prosecution level.
The police seem to accept that they should be treated the same as other members of the public. It's being treated as special that gives problems. If the CPS are more likely to prosecute a police officer then this is unreasonable as police are more likely than others to be confronted by a situation where they might be at risk.
There are many officers who believe that the CPS are subject to political pressure, not only in matters of killing but in lesser matters. If there is a choice of charges for an habitual offender, they often choose the lower. This is not always the case if the defendant is an officer.
People, some on here, suggest that the police are treated differently to members of the public because they get off charges so often. But this is, I think, the wrong way around. Police officers get off charges more often as they are treated specially by the CPS.
I know of one case where the judge after a pre-trial hearing said to the defence team for a superintendent threatened with an offence that carried a max of life imprisonment that there is no way a trial would proceed. Two pre-trial hearings later, with judges pointing out errors in the prosecution case - cases actually - it went for listing. Once at the court, in front of the trial judge, the cases were thrown out.
The comment from the judge at the first of the three PT hearings would most likely have resulted in the charges being dropped there and then. The super, a close friend of mine, then tried to find another case where there were three warnings.
He's still looking.
Senior officers pose with their firearms units after the many successful operations, especially where the press are impressed. Once someone is killed, they wash their hands, or at least that's been the experience of a friend of mine.
I've been told by a CPS lawyer that public interest is pushed. Well OK, I can see that. But there still should be a likelihood of a conviction before subjecting an officer to months, sometimes more than a year, of the threat of life imprisonment being carried by an officer who put his own body on the line. We are dealing with people here.
Further, officers taking part in firearms operations, taking risks, should not have to make instant decisions with the thought at the back of their mind that if they do pull the trigger, their life will be over for a year or so. They will all be aware of the affect such charges have had on colleagues: ex-colleagues in the main.
The police seem to accept that they should be treated the same as other members of the public. It's being treated as special that gives problems. If the CPS are more likely to prosecute a police officer then this is unreasonable as police are more likely than others to be confronted by a situation where they might be at risk.
There are many officers who believe that the CPS are subject to political pressure, not only in matters of killing but in lesser matters. If there is a choice of charges for an habitual offender, they often choose the lower. This is not always the case if the defendant is an officer.
People, some on here, suggest that the police are treated differently to members of the public because they get off charges so often. But this is, I think, the wrong way around. Police officers get off charges more often as they are treated specially by the CPS.
I know of one case where the judge after a pre-trial hearing said to the defence team for a superintendent threatened with an offence that carried a max of life imprisonment that there is no way a trial would proceed. Two pre-trial hearings later, with judges pointing out errors in the prosecution case - cases actually - it went for listing. Once at the court, in front of the trial judge, the cases were thrown out.
The comment from the judge at the first of the three PT hearings would most likely have resulted in the charges being dropped there and then. The super, a close friend of mine, then tried to find another case where there were three warnings.
He's still looking.
Senior officers pose with their firearms units after the many successful operations, especially where the press are impressed. Once someone is killed, they wash their hands, or at least that's been the experience of a friend of mine.
I've been told by a CPS lawyer that public interest is pushed. Well OK, I can see that. But there still should be a likelihood of a conviction before subjecting an officer to months, sometimes more than a year, of the threat of life imprisonment being carried by an officer who put his own body on the line. We are dealing with people here.
Further, officers taking part in firearms operations, taking risks, should not have to make instant decisions with the thought at the back of their mind that if they do pull the trigger, their life will be over for a year or so. They will all be aware of the affect such charges have had on colleagues: ex-colleagues in the main.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: Shoot and you're damned.
Don't shoot and you're damned.
I don't think this is the case at all.Don't shoot and you're damned.
For accuracy, it should be:
Shoot without sufficient justification (which I assume has been amply explained during training) and you're damned.
Don't shoot when the situation requires it and you're damned.
Ian
What I'd like to know is exactly how much training is required to be such a st shot? I'm no professionally trained marksman, but there is no way I could miss something the size of a man's head from that range. Stevie Wonder could've placed his shots better than that cack handed killer. No surprise they took his gun off him. I bet his colleagues were 100% behind him, it was probably the safest place to stand.
t shot? I'm no professionally trained marksman, but there is no way I could miss something the size of a man's head from that range. Stevie Wonder could've placed his shots better than that cack handed killer. No surprise they took his gun off him. I bet his colleagues were 100% behind him, it was probably the safest place to stand.johnny fotze said:
What I'd like to know is exactly how much training is required to be such a st shot? I'm no professionally trained marksman, but there is no way I could miss something the size of a man's head from that range. Stevie Wonder could've placed his shots better than that cack handed killer. No surprise they took his gun off him. I bet his colleagues were 100% behind him, it was probably the safest place to stand.
What constitutes a st shot? I'm no professionally trained marksman, but there is no way I could miss something the size of a man's head from that range. Stevie Wonder could've placed his shots better than that cack handed killer. No surprise they took his gun off him. I bet his colleagues were 100% behind him, it was probably the safest place to stand.t shot as you so ellequantly put it..? As I understand it, the officer shot him 6 times, four of which were head shots and the other two body shot. Under the guidance of 'Shoot to stop' I would suggest he achieved his goal.
Mr_B said:
Out of interest , what does a firearms officer get ? Is it any extra on top ?
As a member of a Tactical Firearms Unit I received a small 'standby allowance'. I don't recall the amount but it wasn't a lot. Week on call, week off call. During week on, no alcohol, you had to be contactable at all times (pre mobile phone days so a pager which often went off for no apparent reason so you had a search for a phone)remain within the Force area & expected to turn out at any time of the day or night whether on duty, off duty, rest day, Christmas day etc. I do sometimes wonder why my wife put up with it.
One of my hobbies was shooting, in particular full-bore pistols. I competed successfully at national level, and it always amuses me when people pontificate about 'why can't they shoot a gun out of the baddies hand', 'how can they miss a man size target' etc etc. Just tells me that the pontificator has never shot & has absolutely no idea what they're talking about.
Even under the 'stress' of shooting against the clock in competition it wasn't that unusual for an experienced shooter to completely miss a torso sized target. Never mind something that might shoot back.
Edited by paintman on Wednesday 30th July 20:22
johnny fotze said:
What I'd like to know is exactly how much training is required to be such a st shot? I'm no professionally trained marksman, but there is no way I could miss something the size of a man's head from that range. Stevie Wonder could've placed his shots better than that cack handed killer. No surprise they took his gun off him. I bet his colleagues were 100% behind him, it was probably the safest place to stand.
Because dealing with a car full of armed criminals in a busy high street is a piece of cake isn't it? I'd be willing to bet you'd go to pieces if you got within 30 feet of one.t shot? I'm no professionally trained marksman, but there is no way I could miss something the size of a man's head from that range. Stevie Wonder could've placed his shots better than that cack handed killer. No surprise they took his gun off him. I bet his colleagues were 100% behind him, it was probably the safest place to stand.Idiot.
wiliferus said:
What constitutes a st shot as you so ellequantly put it..?
As I understand it, the officer shot him 6 times, four of which were head shots and the other two body shot. Under the guidance of 'Shoot to stop' I would suggest he achieved his goal.
FOUR head shots to stop him?!? I misunderstood, sorry, I didn't realize he was trying to stop the incredible hulk.t shot as you so ellequantly put it..? As I understand it, the officer shot him 6 times, four of which were head shots and the other two body shot. Under the guidance of 'Shoot to stop' I would suggest he achieved his goal.
johnny fotze said:
FOUR head shots to stop him?!? I misunderstood, sorry, I didn't realize he was trying to stop the incredible hulk.
Wasn't he sat in the back of a car? Depending on where the officer was stood perhaps the choices of aim were restricted with regard to what could be seen and potential for ricochets? johnny fotze said:
What I'd like to know is exactly how much training is required to be such a st shot? I'm no professionally trained marksman, but there is no way I could miss something the size of a man's head from that range. Stevie Wonder could've placed his shots better than that cack handed killer. No surprise they took his gun off him. I bet his colleagues were 100% behind him, it was probably the safest place to stand.
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. t shot? I'm no professionally trained marksman, but there is no way I could miss something the size of a man's head from that range. Stevie Wonder could've placed his shots better than that cack handed killer. No surprise they took his gun off him. I bet his colleagues were 100% behind him, it was probably the safest place to stand.340600 said:
Because dealing with a car full of armed criminals in a busy high street is a piece of cake isn't it? I'd be willing to bet you'd go to pieces if you got within 30 feet of one.
Idiot.
And you are?; the voice of experience? someone with Clinton Baptiste like powers of empathy? a cake obsessed rotunda? a degenerate gambler? someone who confines his name calling to the safety of the internet?Idiot.
agtlaw said:
Many thanks agt. Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff