Man Police shot "lawfully killed"
Discussion
BBC News
A verdict of lawful killing has been returned by the jury in the inquest of a man shot dead by police while carrying a lighter shaped like a gun.
Derek Bennett, 29, was hit four times by two marksmen in Brixton, south London, on 16 July 2001. The officers said they thought the gun was real.
Coroner Selena Lynch directed the jury to return the lawful killing verdict.
Mr Bennett's relatives described the jury's verdict as "outrageous" and a "travesty of justice".
He died after armed officers opened fire when he grabbed John Knightly, 53, and held the 'weapon' to his head.
The Inner South London inquest heard that Mr Knightly wriggled free at which point Mr Bennett turned the novelty lighter on police and tried to take cover behind a pillar as they fired six shots at him.
Doctors had recommended the former psychiatric patient be committed to a mental hospital under the Mental Health Act just a week earlier.
Giving evidence from behind a screen, one of the policemen, identified only as 'Officer A', said he repeatedly fired on Mr Bennett with his Glock machine gun.
"I thought he was going to shoot me so I fired. I fired at least two shots very quickly," he said.
Speaking outside court, Mr Bennett's brother Daniel said: "For the last three years we have been fighting to ensure those responsible for the death of Derek are brought to justice.
"At the very least we hoped the jury would be able to consider all the verdicts, in our view Derek was unlawfully killed.
"We hoped the jury would agree with us, but the decision by the coroner meant they were not allowed to do this.
"This is a travesty of justice which should never have been allowed to happen."
In a statement, Mr Bennett's father Ernest said: "We are devastated and our grief is compounded by this outrageous decision of the court."
The family's solicitor Imran Khan said he will take the case to the High Court.
A verdict of lawful killing has been returned by the jury in the inquest of a man shot dead by police while carrying a lighter shaped like a gun.
Derek Bennett, 29, was hit four times by two marksmen in Brixton, south London, on 16 July 2001. The officers said they thought the gun was real.
Coroner Selena Lynch directed the jury to return the lawful killing verdict.
Mr Bennett's relatives described the jury's verdict as "outrageous" and a "travesty of justice".
He died after armed officers opened fire when he grabbed John Knightly, 53, and held the 'weapon' to his head.
The Inner South London inquest heard that Mr Knightly wriggled free at which point Mr Bennett turned the novelty lighter on police and tried to take cover behind a pillar as they fired six shots at him.
Doctors had recommended the former psychiatric patient be committed to a mental hospital under the Mental Health Act just a week earlier.
Giving evidence from behind a screen, one of the policemen, identified only as 'Officer A', said he repeatedly fired on Mr Bennett with his Glock machine gun.
"I thought he was going to shoot me so I fired. I fired at least two shots very quickly," he said.
Speaking outside court, Mr Bennett's brother Daniel said: "For the last three years we have been fighting to ensure those responsible for the death of Derek are brought to justice.
"At the very least we hoped the jury would be able to consider all the verdicts, in our view Derek was unlawfully killed.
"We hoped the jury would agree with us, but the decision by the coroner meant they were not allowed to do this.
"This is a travesty of justice which should never have been allowed to happen."
In a statement, Mr Bennett's father Ernest said: "We are devastated and our grief is compounded by this outrageous decision of the court."
The family's solicitor Imran Khan said he will take the case to the High Court.
Dibble said:
A verdict of lawful killing has been returned by the jury in the inquest of a man shot dead by police while carrying a lighter shaped like a gun.
Its serious stuff - its illegal to carry a handgun in the UK, therefore if you are seen with one (even if its a replica, cigarette lighter or similar), you MUST assume the worst.
Armed police, something that can quite legitimately be described as a gun and someone will die. Due to the overwhelming firepower, it will almost not be the police. So, I have to say this type of thing is to be expected. As sorry as I am that someone who is clearly mentally ill died, what would you really expect? The police to check first to see if it is real? What, potentially get shot in the process? Nah, big boys with real guns - you simply dont mess...
Dibble said:
The family's solicitor Imran Khan said he will take the case to the High Court.
What, is he a solicitor now? What happened to the cricket? (sorry couldnt resist!)
Dibble said:
He died after armed officers opened fire when he grabbed John Knightly, 53, and held the 'weapon' to his head.
The Inner South London inquest heard that Mr Knightly wriggled free at which point Mr Bennett turned the novelty lighter on police and tried to take cover behind a pillar as they fired six shots at him.
Based on the above I think the actions of the police involved were totally justified.
The emphasis the news report gives to the 'gun' being a 'lighter' seems to be trying to suggest the cops are in the wrong simply because he didnt have a real gun.
Real or not, the guys actions were enough to lead the police to the conclusions and subsequent decisions they made.
dibble said:
Doctors had recommended the former psychiatric patient be committed to a mental hospital under the Mental Health Act just a week earlier.
This is the real issue that needs looking at, why he wasnt in care, and is the reason why this guy is now dead.
>> Edited by swilly on Wednesday 15th December 15:30
BBC News said:
He died after armed officers opened fire when he grabbed John Knightly, 53, and held the 'weapon' to his head
WTF!? It's not like he was walking along sparking up a cigarette!!!!!!! He made out it was a gun, and then pointed it at armed police officers!
We have only the information that has been reported by a journalist, so of that we must be aware, however with the information at hand I am 100% behind the police and dont beleive that in anyway this was a travesty against justice.
Edit to change quote from Dibble to BBC, and spelling
Oh, and Swilly beat me to it, great minds as they say
>> Edited by tonyhetherington on Wednesday 15th December 15:36
Seems justified to me. Even though the gun turned out not to be real, the manner in which it was being used meant that the police had to act accordingly.
If the gun had turned out to be real, and the police hadn't opened fire would the chap who had it pointed at his head still be around now..? Probably not!
Indignation of the members of family is to be expected, but it winds me up when a is case thrown out of one court and they just it push on to another one... Accept it, your member of family was in the wrong, mental illness or not.
If the gun had turned out to be real, and the police hadn't opened fire would the chap who had it pointed at his head still be around now..? Probably not!
Indignation of the members of family is to be expected, but it winds me up when a is case thrown out of one court and they just it push on to another one... Accept it, your member of family was in the wrong, mental illness or not.
Faced with a man holding a gun to someones head, then pointing it toward them in a threatening manner, the officers reacted in an appropriate manner. The fact the gun was later found to be a replica is a moot point.
While I would sympathise with and accept the outrage of the family, such legal action helps no one.
While I would sympathise with and accept the outrage of the family, such legal action helps no one.
Dibble said:
He died after armed officers opened fire when he grabbed John Knightly, 53, and held the 'weapon' to his head.
Fair enough, then.
By doing an action such as this, he obviously wanted to persuade onlookers / police that the "weapon" was real. It had the desired effect (if not the outcome he was after) so tough sh1t.
Dibble said:
[Mr Bennett's relatives described the jury's verdict as "outrageous" and a "travesty of justice".
He died after armed officers opened fire when he grabbed John Knightly, 53, and held the 'weapon' to his head.
The Inner South London inquest heard that Mr Knightly wriggled free at which point Mr Bennett turned the novelty lighter on police and tried to take cover behind a pillar as they fired six shots at him.
Going on the information here the police did completely the right thing. I can't see how it's a "travesty of justice" that they were cleared after somebody points a gun at a bystander and then them
I feel sorry for the police in this situation, those officers will have his death on their conscience even though they acted entirely correctly.
The BBC said:
Giving evidence from behind a screen, one of the policemen, identified only as 'Officer A', said he repeatedly fired on Mr Bennett with his Glock machine gun.
Typical sensationalist reporting - from that description they obviously want to make people think it was like a scene from Rambo. And "his Glock machine gun" - why don't they just go the whole way and say he arrived in a tank.
The police did right - he gave them no option but to shoot him. The only thing that concerns me is that in the text it says six shots were fired but under the guy's picture it says he was hit four times. If that's correct it's only a 66% accuracy which seems a bit on the low side.
The only travesty is that the NHS let the guy down. He shouldn't have been on the street, and it had already been highlighted.
Care in the community, surely just another way of saying abandoned in the community.
Point a gun at armed police and there's a fairly high probability you willl end up getting shot. The decision was the right decision, IMHO.
Care in the community, surely just another way of saying abandoned in the community.
Point a gun at armed police and there's a fairly high probability you willl end up getting shot. The decision was the right decision, IMHO.
BliarOut said:
The only travesty is that the NHS let the guy down. He shouldn't have been on the street, and it had already been highlighted.
Trouble is, it's probably easier for this chap's family to "point the finger" at an "identifiable" person, ie Officer A, than at some faceless bureaucratic organsiation like the NHS, where these decisions are probably made by committee.
Seems fair to me but unfortunate for the family, who will never accept it. The policemen are just as much victims in this, they took a life to find after the fact it was unnecessary, they will have to live with the decision. The care in the community has cost lots of lives and blighted families who have to cope with the effects of a love one who is deeply ill, but no doubt some faceless wonder will dig up statistics to prove the goverment knows best.
MilnerR said:
I thought ARV were armed with H&K MP5s and used Glocks pistols. Unless they've been issued with the full automatic glocks
Well given the sensationalist reporting style, you don't want accuracy to spoil the story do you. I mean to say, he repeatedly fired..........twice. bang bang.
If I was going to write a report on toboganning, I would at least bother to find out what they hit the ball with though.
>> Edited by ratpit on Wednesday 15th December 18:32
I am sure it must be hard for the family, but they must have some common sense.
If you walk around with a gun to someones head, then point it at police, you expect to get shot. Why dont they blame the guy who did it? (The fact that the gun was not real is not relevant to anything).
And the idiots that decided to take thit to court should be made to pay for all the costs out of their own pocket.
If you walk around with a gun to someones head, then point it at police, you expect to get shot. Why dont they blame the guy who did it? (The fact that the gun was not real is not relevant to anything).
And the idiots that decided to take thit to court should be made to pay for all the costs out of their own pocket.
I spent 30 years around handguns and I was pretty good with them. However, in the stress of a shooting in which you believe that the other person has a weapon and intends to discharge it at you missing 2 from 6 can happen. Better if it did not, but that is real life not hollywood.
Totally justified - my sympathies to the family, to the officers involved, and to the families of the officers involved.
Totally justified - my sympathies to the family, to the officers involved, and to the families of the officers involved.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff