Azelle Rodney Murder Charge
Discussion
GALLARDOGUY said:
Bigends said:
Interesting read - bit of a catalogue of errors
http://azellerodneyinquiry.independent.gov.uk/docs...
What a fhttp://azellerodneyinquiry.independent.gov.uk/docs...
king shambles.I further note that 2 other officers fired weapons inappropriately.
I expect the usual apologists to accuse me of police-hating for this. I further expect them to excuse this debacle, possibly by saying that they have a very difficult job & are only human (although superior to lesser, non-police humans, obviously).
jaf01uk said:
La Liga said:
You have 1.6% of the police armed in Scotland. IIRC the Chief is trying to get them more involved in routine work as the majority of time they aren't deployed on firearms incidents (this isn't anything new as they are just normal police officers with a specialism). This increased visibility results in people thinking there are more when there aren't.
Congratulations on completely missing the point, we all know there are armed officers out and about but they do not routinely wear guns in the street and in McDonalds, I know a number of armed cops here and would certainly not like to see them wandering about wearing guns all the time!!Edited by paintman on Thursday 31st July 19:46
Dibble said:
Funnily enough, I did have a skim of the summary before I saw your link. What I still struggle to reconcile is how the enquiry "knows" what E7 was thinking, particularly with reference to the psychologists report saying his recall may have been flawed due to stressors of the event - not that he necessarily lied (which of course, he may have), but that he could have been mistaken.
The "honestly held belief" is subjective. Even if, post incident it is shown to be "objectively wrong", it doesn't necessarily mean it can't be a defence. I've perhaps not worded that the best I can - for example, if an officer believes there and then he's seen the suspect with a weapon and shoots him/her, the fact that weapon later turns out to be a blank firer or a replica (and therefore not capable of causing injury) doesn't mean the officer acted unlawfully.
(As you know): recollections of an incident are always, but always wrong. It has been proved many times. Six people witness one incident and six people see it differently. Much as we like to think we know what we see, we don't. We 'fill in the blanks' as it were. This has been known about for years and is hardly something open to contradiction. The "honestly held belief" is subjective. Even if, post incident it is shown to be "objectively wrong", it doesn't necessarily mean it can't be a defence. I've perhaps not worded that the best I can - for example, if an officer believes there and then he's seen the suspect with a weapon and shoots him/her, the fact that weapon later turns out to be a blank firer or a replica (and therefore not capable of causing injury) doesn't mean the officer acted unlawfully.
E7 can be wrong and telling the truth at the same time. Of course he can.
I've mentioned before on here that I have little faith in the conclusions of such inquires as these. Those where I have had some inside knowledge have always, but always, ignored evidence (either deliberately or not I have no way of knowing) and come to unjustified conclusions. I know of a person whose career was adversely affected by the criticisms of a learned gent such as the bloke in charge of this inquiry, yet the officer was not called to the inquiry, not required to submit any evidence and yet the panel felt it fit to name the officer and suggest they failed in their duty. A simple statement from the officer would have shown that there was no failure and the officer did everything that could reasonably be expected. All procedures were followed.
Luck of the draw for the officer concerned. Someone always has to be blamed.
The bloke who initialed this document has put in the occasional dig: 'common sense'? Now that was nasty, and not something that was down to him to decide. This should be a report, not a vehicle for snide comments.
The conclusion of the chap in charge is that an officer deliberately shot someone yet there is no suggestion as to motive, reason or cause. I've read that this officer has given exemplary service and has been on a number of firearms incidents where he has drawn a weapon. Yet we are to believe that he just ran amuck.
I don't like the wording of this report, or at least that of the conclusion, but then I don't like such reports as these.
Derek Smith said:
(As you know): recollections of an incident are always, but always wrong. It has been proved many times. Six people witness one incident and six people see it differently. Much as we like to think we know what we see, we don't. We 'fill in the blanks' as it were. This has been known about for years and is hardly something open to contradiction.
E7 can be wrong and telling the truth at the same time. Of course he can.
I've mentioned before on here that I have little faith in the conclusions of such inquires as these. Those where I have had some inside knowledge have always, but always, ignored evidence (either deliberately or not I have no way of knowing) and come to unjustified conclusions. I know of a person whose career was adversely affected by the criticisms of a learned gent such as the bloke in charge of this inquiry, yet the officer was not called to the inquiry, not required to submit any evidence and yet the panel felt it fit to name the officer and suggest they failed in their duty. A simple statement from the officer would have shown that there was no failure and the officer did everything that could reasonably be expected. All procedures were followed.
Luck of the draw for the officer concerned. Someone always has to be blamed.
The bloke who initialed this document has put in the occasional dig: 'common sense'? Now that was nasty, and not something that was down to him to decide. This should be a report, not a vehicle for snide comments.
The conclusion of the chap in charge is that an officer deliberately shot someone yet there is no suggestion as to motive, reason or cause. I've read that this officer has given exemplary service and has been on a number of firearms incidents where he has drawn a weapon. Yet we are to believe that he just ran amuck.
I don't like the wording of this report, or at least that of the conclusion, but then I don't like such reports as these.
.......or maybe thought he was bombproof. Stick to the 'honestly held belief'account which has always worked in the past -and everything would blow over. If nothing happened over the de Menezes shooting this wouldnt be a problem...just a thoughE7 can be wrong and telling the truth at the same time. Of course he can.
I've mentioned before on here that I have little faith in the conclusions of such inquires as these. Those where I have had some inside knowledge have always, but always, ignored evidence (either deliberately or not I have no way of knowing) and come to unjustified conclusions. I know of a person whose career was adversely affected by the criticisms of a learned gent such as the bloke in charge of this inquiry, yet the officer was not called to the inquiry, not required to submit any evidence and yet the panel felt it fit to name the officer and suggest they failed in their duty. A simple statement from the officer would have shown that there was no failure and the officer did everything that could reasonably be expected. All procedures were followed.
Luck of the draw for the officer concerned. Someone always has to be blamed.
The bloke who initialed this document has put in the occasional dig: 'common sense'? Now that was nasty, and not something that was down to him to decide. This should be a report, not a vehicle for snide comments.
The conclusion of the chap in charge is that an officer deliberately shot someone yet there is no suggestion as to motive, reason or cause. I've read that this officer has given exemplary service and has been on a number of firearms incidents where he has drawn a weapon. Yet we are to believe that he just ran amuck.
I don't like the wording of this report, or at least that of the conclusion, but then I don't like such reports as these.
paintman said:
jaf01uk said:
La Liga said:
You have 1.6% of the police armed in Scotland. IIRC the Chief is trying to get them more involved in routine work as the majority of time they aren't deployed on firearms incidents (this isn't anything new as they are just normal police officers with a specialism). This increased visibility results in people thinking there are more when there aren't.
Congratulations on completely missing the point, we all know there are armed officers out and about but they do not routinely wear guns in the street and in McDonalds, I know a number of armed cops here and would certainly not like to see them wandering about wearing guns all the time!!Edited by paintman on Thursday 31st July 19:46
I have already clarified this.
The Scottish force has 17,234 officers. 275 are Authorised Firearms Officers. Scotland has around 55 armed officers per million people. England and Wales has around 120. That's some "routine arming" in Scotland, indeed
This 275 provides the 24/7 cover so only a % amount of those officers will be on duty at any one time. On a 5 shift-rota this will be a 55 theoretical officers covering the whole of Scotland. In reality, this will be a fair bit less given leave / courses and other consistent abstractions. Plus a % may not carry each day depending on the minimum specified numbers. Some may also be on ports and other roles etc.
From what I can read the Chief has asked them to be more visible and do more routine work (as they always have done). They are a normal policing resource that has a specialism, and the majority of their time is spent not doing firearms work, so why not? It means a better response as more incidents get dealt with. I can understand why people think there are more if they are being more visible, but that's no excuse for having a debate based on false pretences.
There is no "routine arming". Until the people challenging the police actually know what's going on and stop debating red herrings, there should be no call for any Parliamentary justification.
The Scottish force has 17,234 officers. 275 are Authorised Firearms Officers. Scotland has around 55 armed officers per million people. England and Wales has around 120. That's some "routine arming" in Scotland, indeed
This 275 provides the 24/7 cover so only a % amount of those officers will be on duty at any one time. On a 5 shift-rota this will be a 55 theoretical officers covering the whole of Scotland. In reality, this will be a fair bit less given leave / courses and other consistent abstractions. Plus a % may not carry each day depending on the minimum specified numbers. Some may also be on ports and other roles etc.
From what I can read the Chief has asked them to be more visible and do more routine work (as they always have done). They are a normal policing resource that has a specialism, and the majority of their time is spent not doing firearms work, so why not? It means a better response as more incidents get dealt with. I can understand why people think there are more if they are being more visible, but that's no excuse for having a debate based on false pretences.
There is no "routine arming". Until the people challenging the police actually know what's going on and stop debating red herrings, there should be no call for any Parliamentary justification.
Bigends said:
.......or maybe thought he was bombproof. Stick to the 'honestly held belief'account which has always worked in the past -and everything would blow over. If nothing happened over the de Menezes shooting this wouldnt be a problem...just a though
Like all those other times he didn't shoot you mean?If you think any firearms officer believes that if they shoot a suspect it will blow over then they haven't been paying attention.
As you say though, just a thought. But that's not what an inquiry should be about.
The chair can't, or should not as it would appear he has, make assumptions.
jaf01uk said:
paintman said:
jaf01uk said:
La Liga said:
You have 1.6% of the police armed in Scotland. IIRC the Chief is trying to get them more involved in routine work as the majority of time they aren't deployed on firearms incidents (this isn't anything new as they are just normal police officers with a specialism). This increased visibility results in people thinking there are more when there aren't.
Congratulations on completely missing the point, we all know there are armed officers out and about but they do not routinely wear guns in the street and in McDonalds, I know a number of armed cops here and would certainly not like to see them wandering about wearing guns all the time!!Edited by paintman on Thursday 31st July 19:46
In this case I believe this is the correct decision but only because the dead man was a known criminal with fireams in close proximity to him.
As we have seen in the case of JCdM and Kayar/Kohair brothers where completely innocent people have been shot dead and injured, the police have a responsibility to get it right all the time.
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.
Take the officers who attended Lee Rigby's murder for example. Outstanding professionals and only used lethal force when it was absolutely necessary.
Unless we want this country to turn out like the US where police shoot first and ask questions later, then we should be glad this chap is no longer an armed officer. With the number of knives and guns that are seized by police each year, I can imagine the number of dead bodies that would litter Britain's streets if all our armed officers were like this chap and just used the "I feared for my safety" excuse.
As we have seen in the case of JCdM and Kayar/Kohair brothers where completely innocent people have been shot dead and injured, the police have a responsibility to get it right all the time.
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.
Take the officers who attended Lee Rigby's murder for example. Outstanding professionals and only used lethal force when it was absolutely necessary.
Unless we want this country to turn out like the US where police shoot first and ask questions later, then we should be glad this chap is no longer an armed officer. With the number of knives and guns that are seized by police each year, I can imagine the number of dead bodies that would litter Britain's streets if all our armed officers were like this chap and just used the "I feared for my safety" excuse.
You class self defence* as an excuse but approve the verdict because the dead guy was a crim? So on the one hand we all lose the right to act on belief in a threat, and on the other hand police shootings are ok so long as they only shoot perps? I am not sure you have thought this through.
* Self defence is established by a subjective test. Did the shooter believe there was a threat? Reasonableness of belief irrelevant.
* Self defence is established by a subjective test. Did the shooter believe there was a threat? Reasonableness of belief irrelevant.
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 3rd July 16:16
Eclassy said:
Unless we want this country to turn out like the US where police shoot first and ask questions later, then we should be glad this chap is no longer an armed officer. With the number of knives and guns that are seized by police each year, I can imagine the number of dead bodies that would litter Britain's streets if all our armed officers were like this chap and just used the "I feared for my safety" excuse.
The courts found him not guilty. I don't think it is out place to try him a second time on here.La Liga said:
Who'd be a firearms officer? 10 years to get to this point.
His mother is right, it was a wholly avoidable death. It was wholly avoidable by her son not being involved in armed crime and placing himself in a situation where he'd be subject to hard stops.
And then we get, I assume without irony: His mother is right, it was a wholly avoidable death. It was wholly avoidable by her son not being involved in armed crime and placing himself in a situation where he'd be subject to hard stops.
Eclassy said:
I personally believe this policeman was trigger happy and his record shows that. . . . . I can imagine the number of dead bodies that would litter Britain's streets if all our armed officers were like this chap and just used the "I feared for my safety" excuse.
Can you imagine what the country would be like, and the number of dead bodies littering the streets, if the police refused to carry firearms and consequently refused to put their lives at risk, not to mention their freedom?The police are entitled to the protection of the law in the same way that you, and other more grateful people, are. Do you know how many armed incidents this chap went on, each time risking his life? If not then 'trigger happy' says much more about you than you could say about him.
It isn't common to discharge a firearm, and obviously even less so to do it more than once. If there's one place it's likely to occur, it's the Met, as nearly all police shootings are there for various reasons (size, level of criminality etc). Just because it's not that probable to use lethal force on multiple occasions doesn't mean we can infer he was 'trigger happy'.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff