Unarmed Man was Unlawfully Killed .....
Discussion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3965207.stm
Unarmed man was unlawfully killed
Harry Stanley was returning from the pub when he was shot. A painter-decorator shot by police while carrying a table leg which was mistaken for a gun was unlawfully killed, an inquest jury has ruled. Harry Stanley, 46, from Hackney, east London, was shot in the head and the hand by two Met officers in 1999.
Speaking after the inquest at St Pancras Coroners' Court on Friday, his widow Irene said "we've got justice".
The Met said it was reconsidering suspending the officers until a review of the case has concluded.
The Stanley family won a ruling in the High Court to have an open verdict from his first inquest quashed.
Ms Stanley told the BBC: "It has been a long hard struggle for Harry's family and my family.
"We had the first inquest and it was one-sided for the Metropolitan police, but now we've got a fair inquest with a new coroner and we've got justice."
In a statement, the Met Police said the death of Mr Stanley, originally from Scotland, was regrettable and offered sympathy to his family.
But the Met added: "It must be remembered that the officers were called upon to make a split-second decision while confronting what they believed to be an imminent threat to their lives.
Police review
"They did not have the benefit of hindsight."
The force said it was reconsidering suspending the two officers until a review by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) is concluded. Both officers are to be offered welfare support, the Met added.
Following the verdict the IPCC put forward a recommendation, backed by the coroner Dr Andrew Reid, that research is commissioned to try to prevent similar deaths.
The Crown Prosecution Service looked at the case in 2001 and concluded there was insufficient evidence to bring criminal charges against the police officers involved in the death of Mr Stanley.
But a CPS spokeswoman confirmed on Friday that the case would be reviewed.
The inquest had heard how Mr Stanley was shot as he left a pub in Hackney on his way home.
The Scottish father-of-three had been carrying a table leg, which had just been repaired by his brother, in a plastic bag.
Cancer operation
Two police marksmen had mistakenly been informed that Mr Stanley had a sawn-off shotgun.
One of the two officers, Pc Kevin Fagan, told the jury he was convinced he was "looking down the barrel of a shotgun".
He added he fired fractionally before his colleague Insp Neil Sharman, hitting Mr Stanley on the hand.
Insp Sharman told the court he fired one round when he thought Pc Fagan was about to be shot.
He said he aimed at Mr Stanley's body but missed and shot him in the head.
During the inquest it emerged Mr Stanley was recovering from an operation as part of his treatment for colon cancer when he died.
Ms Stanley told the jury: "He couldn't do his shoelaces, he couldn't bend down, his stomach was still tender because of the wound and the stitches."
Unarmed man was unlawfully killed
Harry Stanley was returning from the pub when he was shot. A painter-decorator shot by police while carrying a table leg which was mistaken for a gun was unlawfully killed, an inquest jury has ruled. Harry Stanley, 46, from Hackney, east London, was shot in the head and the hand by two Met officers in 1999.
Speaking after the inquest at St Pancras Coroners' Court on Friday, his widow Irene said "we've got justice".
The Met said it was reconsidering suspending the officers until a review of the case has concluded.
The Stanley family won a ruling in the High Court to have an open verdict from his first inquest quashed.
Ms Stanley told the BBC: "It has been a long hard struggle for Harry's family and my family.
"We had the first inquest and it was one-sided for the Metropolitan police, but now we've got a fair inquest with a new coroner and we've got justice."
In a statement, the Met Police said the death of Mr Stanley, originally from Scotland, was regrettable and offered sympathy to his family.
But the Met added: "It must be remembered that the officers were called upon to make a split-second decision while confronting what they believed to be an imminent threat to their lives.
Police review
"They did not have the benefit of hindsight."
The force said it was reconsidering suspending the two officers until a review by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) is concluded. Both officers are to be offered welfare support, the Met added.
Following the verdict the IPCC put forward a recommendation, backed by the coroner Dr Andrew Reid, that research is commissioned to try to prevent similar deaths.
The Crown Prosecution Service looked at the case in 2001 and concluded there was insufficient evidence to bring criminal charges against the police officers involved in the death of Mr Stanley.
But a CPS spokeswoman confirmed on Friday that the case would be reviewed.
The inquest had heard how Mr Stanley was shot as he left a pub in Hackney on his way home.
The Scottish father-of-three had been carrying a table leg, which had just been repaired by his brother, in a plastic bag.
Cancer operation
Two police marksmen had mistakenly been informed that Mr Stanley had a sawn-off shotgun.
One of the two officers, Pc Kevin Fagan, told the jury he was convinced he was "looking down the barrel of a shotgun".
He added he fired fractionally before his colleague Insp Neil Sharman, hitting Mr Stanley on the hand.
Insp Sharman told the court he fired one round when he thought Pc Fagan was about to be shot.
He said he aimed at Mr Stanley's body but missed and shot him in the head.
During the inquest it emerged Mr Stanley was recovering from an operation as part of his treatment for colon cancer when he died.
Ms Stanley told the jury: "He couldn't do his shoelaces, he couldn't bend down, his stomach was still tender because of the wound and the stitches."
Appalling.
Frankly, if I were walking down the street with one of my rifles, it still wouldn't be all right to shoot me.
I'd expect to be asked about it, but not to be killed!
People are human, though. Not much point locking the policemen away for life - the rest of us have the unfair advantage of almost never having to make these decisions - but a very, very hard lesson should have been learned. Has it?
Frankly, if I were walking down the street with one of my rifles, it still wouldn't be all right to shoot me.
I'd expect to be asked about it, but not to be killed!
People are human, though. Not much point locking the policemen away for life - the rest of us have the unfair advantage of almost never having to make these decisions - but a very, very hard lesson should have been learned. Has it?
charltm said:
Appalling.
Frankly, if I were walking down the street with one of my rifles, it still wouldn't be all right to shoot me.
I'd expect to be asked about it, but not to be killed!
People are human, though. Not much point locking the policemen away for life - the rest of us have the unfair advantage of almost never having to make these decisions - but a very, very hard lesson should have been learned. Has it?
Lots of other people have to make rapid decisions fast.
Colleague of mine stopped a child jumping out of a first floor window onto concrete. Police happy to go after him for assault on the grounds that "you couldn't be sure he was going to jump".
The Police are quite happy to persecute them if it suits them.
I have no problem with these sorts of excuses *IF* they are extended to someone else.
I am not going to go into this one as frankly I don't know the full story.
Firearms officers shoot after a challenge, sometimes more than one.
It isn't a case of shooting straight away, it is the last resort.
Obviously something was wrong as the verdict wouldn't have gone the way it did. I will be interested in reading the full story if we hear it.
Firearms officers shoot after a challenge, sometimes more than one.
It isn't a case of shooting straight away, it is the last resort.
Obviously something was wrong as the verdict wouldn't have gone the way it did. I will be interested in reading the full story if we hear it.
What a dreadful tragedy, you have to feel for the guy that killed him also, imagine trying to cope with that on your conscience.
What I would like to know is who reported this, and why they said he was carrying a sawn off shotgun.
If someone did it out of malice or as a sick joke, that's the person to be pursuing.
What I would like to know is who reported this, and why they said he was carrying a sawn off shotgun.
If someone did it out of malice or as a sick joke, that's the person to be pursuing.
What the hell is the CPS thinking? 
Of course there is enough evidence there are only two questions to ask.
Q - Did the officers open fire on an unarmed man?
A - Yes
Q – Did the innocent man (who was only carrying a table leg) die?
A - Yes
Conclusion = MURDER
What would be the difference if I shouted a similar warning to someone walking down the street with a rolled up umbrella then proceeded to just shoot them.
If the two armed offices cannot tell the difference between a table leg and a shotgun what the hell are they doing the job for in the first place?
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander!!!
Of course there is enough evidence there are only two questions to ask.
Q - Did the officers open fire on an unarmed man?
A - Yes
Q – Did the innocent man (who was only carrying a table leg) die?
A - Yes
Conclusion = MURDER
What would be the difference if I shouted a similar warning to someone walking down the street with a rolled up umbrella then proceeded to just shoot them.
If the two armed offices cannot tell the difference between a table leg and a shotgun what the hell are they doing the job for in the first place?
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander!!!
autismuk said:On a similar note, I know of a teacher who was prevented (by the headteacher if I recall) from running after a reception pupil who ran across the school field towards a busy road. Why? To avoid a prosecution for assault. Teacher had to stand, watch and wait to see if the child had the sense to stop itself.
Appalling.
Frankly, if I were walking down the street with one of my rifles, it still wouldn't be all right to shoot me.
I'd expect to be asked about it, but not to be killed!
People are human, though. Not much point locking the policemen away for life - the rest of us have the unfair advantage of almost never having to make these decisions - but a very, very hard lesson should have been learned. Has it?
Lots of other people have to make rapid decisions fast.
Colleague of mine stopped a child jumping out of a first floor window onto concrete. Police happy to go after him for assault on the grounds that "you couldn't be sure he was going to jump".
The Police are quite happy to persecute them if it suits them.
I have no problem with these sorts of excuses *IF* they are extended to someone else.
"In loco parentis"?
What is the world coming to?
drv112 said:
If the two armed offices cannot tell the difference between a table leg and a shotgun what the hell are they doing the job for in the first place?
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander!!!
The table leg was in a bag!
Have you ever seen a sawn off in a bag?
No! I think you have not
There is a flip side to this.
Firearms officers are highly trained. They have regular weapons handling practice, tactics, F.A.T.S testing and shooting at targets from a variety of positions and at timed intervals.
Handling firearms within the Police is a job which is a voluntary choice.
If these officers are prosecuted for this 'offence', I can see many other officers who have volunteered to undertake those duties, hand back their authorisation tickets.
Who will look after the gun plagued metropolis when that happens?
32K P.A. for the chance to be made a scapegoat for life? No thanks, give me a wad of speeding tickets to get rid of any day rather than a clip full of rounds!!!
Firearms officers are highly trained. They have regular weapons handling practice, tactics, F.A.T.S testing and shooting at targets from a variety of positions and at timed intervals.
Handling firearms within the Police is a job which is a voluntary choice.
If these officers are prosecuted for this 'offence', I can see many other officers who have volunteered to undertake those duties, hand back their authorisation tickets.
Who will look after the gun plagued metropolis when that happens?
32K P.A. for the chance to be made a scapegoat for life? No thanks, give me a wad of speeding tickets to get rid of any day rather than a clip full of rounds!!!
gone said:
If the two armed offices cannot tell the difference between a table leg and a shotgun what the hell are they doing the job for in the first place?
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander!!!
The table leg was in a bag!
Have you ever seen a sawn off in a bag?
No! I think you have not
Did the officers ask him what he had in the bag?
Did the officers know what was in the bag?
Was the bag clear or not?
Did the officers shoot an unarmed man? YES
Did the unarmed man die? YES
If a person with full mental faculties shoots another man is it murder? In most cases YES
The cop shot the man in the head!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! After he had already been shot in the hand.
Murder - Mandatory life sentence.
^Slider^ said:I know exactly where you're coming from with this, but try drunk, deaf, angry, frightened, distracted ... there must be millions of people who meet some or all of these factors walking the street every day and night, do they deserve to be shot?
Did the officers know he was unarmed - NO
Did the officers feel that a man was about to shoot them. = Who knows
Did he comply with requests of the officers - Looks doubtfull
I agree with you..
But
If they had recieved information a male was armed with a shotgun in a bag then that raises some alarm bells.
They see said male with what could be a shotgun in a bag.
He would have been told to stop and place the bag on the ground
He turned towards them
Each case has to be judged on full facts avaliable. To be honest noone here will have those facts and neither will the press as it is operational fact which will not be disclosed.
The summaries made by some about murder are based on the limited facts avaliable and i feel are poorley based.
But
If they had recieved information a male was armed with a shotgun in a bag then that raises some alarm bells.
They see said male with what could be a shotgun in a bag.
He would have been told to stop and place the bag on the ground
He turned towards them
Each case has to be judged on full facts avaliable. To be honest noone here will have those facts and neither will the press as it is operational fact which will not be disclosed.
The summaries made by some about murder are based on the limited facts avaliable and i feel are poorley based.
^Slider^ said:Yes this provokes extreme reactions on each side. Makes the case for non-lethal (but debilitating) weapons very nicely. Put someone like this down on the ground and defenceless, but don't kill them.
Each case has to be judged on full facts avaliable. To be honest noone here will have those facts and neither will the press as it is operational fact which will not be disclosed. The summaries made by some about murder are based on the limited facts avaliable and i feel are poorley based.
Yeah but Taser only works up to 20 feet i believe. And if you Taser someone with a weapon chances are it will go off as the muscles contract, bad news if your in front of it.
At the end of the day, if your carrying a firearm or something made to look like a firearm then if you get shot then you have noone to blame but yourself if you get shot.
At the end of the day, if your carrying a firearm or something made to look like a firearm then if you get shot then you have noone to blame but yourself if you get shot.
^Slider^ said:Sure that's one approach but there are several more devices available apart from rubber bullets and Tasers, e.g. spongeball rounds, beanbag guns, watercannon from armoured vehicle, smoke and sack, lots more here Given the technology available there must be non-lethal solutions to potential threats like this? I'd also say that where lethal force is positively identified then the police should, as now, be empowered to discharge live rounds from firearms.
Yeah but Taser only works up to 20 feet i believe. And if you Taser someone with a weapon chances are it will go off as the muscles contract, bad news if your in front of it.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff