Man shot dead on M62 in pre-planned police operation
Discussion
Red 4 said:
andrewparker said:
The article above mentions that Mr Yaqub believes that the ballistics report they paid for was “in our favour.”
What exactly does he mean by this, and what would this ballistics report cover?
Ballistics.What exactly does he mean by this, and what would this ballistics report cover?
t. So the report confirms that he was shot by a Police issue firearm. How can something that is not in question be in their favour? Would they even be allowed to commission a ballistics report on a Police gun? I assume they’d have no access to the gun found in the car?
Alpinestars said:
La Liga said:
Alpinestars said:
You're missing the sarcasm in my first post.
Fair enough. Alpinestars said:
As far as what the CPS is doing now could be irrelevant to whether they will pursue a private case. How do you know what the difference in evidence is going to be?
The evidence is contained. It's nearly all going to come from the police and IPCC. What else can the family bring? The only thing I can imagine are different accounts (from the ones provided to the police) from the others in the car. The IPCC are likely to obtain (or at least try to) accounts from the others in the car anyway, so unless they refuse they will have that information.
If there are any differences then it'll be the PP having less evidence / information. They, for example, aren't going to have access to sensitive information like the IPCC will.
Additionally, if there were new compelling evidence, then the CPS can consider it for their own prosecution.
Who said anything about me knowing what evidence there is? I don’t need to. My angle was considering what other possible evidence people involved in a PP could bring to the the table that the CPS wouldn’t already have when making their decision. Beyond what I’ve speculated upon already, I can’t see what else someone external could bring given the closed nature of the incident.
andrewparker said:
So the report confirms that he was shot by a Police issue firearm. How can something that is not in question be in their favour? Would they even be allowed to commission a ballistics report on a Police gun? I assume they’d have no access to the gun found in the car?
I would imagine the ballistics report would confirm the weapon used, where it was fired from, the trajectory of the round/ rounds and the effect on its target.The family won't have access to the weapons.
If the article is to be believed, an expert instructed by them/ their lawyers has had access.
Red 4 said:
I would imagine the ballistics report would confirm the weapon used, where it was fired from, the trajectory of the round/ rounds and the effect on its target.
The family won't have access to the weapons.
If the article is to be believed, an expert instructed by them/ their lawyers has had access.
Cheers RedThe family won't have access to the weapons.
If the article is to be believed, an expert instructed by them/ their lawyers has had access.
Countdown said:
The way I read the article it seemed like he was saying “regardless of everything that had gone on beforehand, the shooting of my son “at that time/in those circumstances “ was wrong”.
Maybe I’m missing something but surely the situation only AROSE because of his son’s previous record???? IIRC the police had reason to believe he would be armed and acted accordingly.
If the police are going to arrest PsychoPete down the local pub, and previous knowledge about PsychoPete suggests he may be armed, are the police supposed to wait until he points a gun at them before reacting?
Absolutely shocking post.Maybe I’m missing something but surely the situation only AROSE because of his son’s previous record???? IIRC the police had reason to believe he would be armed and acted accordingly.
If the police are going to arrest PsychoPete down the local pub, and previous knowledge about PsychoPete suggests he may be armed, are the police supposed to wait until he points a gun at them before reacting?
Posting sensible reasoned and intelligent stuff like that suggests something to me.
It suggests you are an ultra right wing non white hating facist of the most intolerable kind
Oh hang on a sec..............................................
Basically what he is saying is unless an officer is charged with murder he will not be happy.
He also seem to accept his son was a criminal but is saying regardless he must have been executed as the tinted windows meant they could not see properly.
So doesn't that prove the point for the police? He had a gun, he could see they were police and appeared to go for his gun and was shot.
Even for Mansfield this case seems open and shut as justified killing. No doubt we will have some trouble on the streets if there is not a verdict they like.
He also seem to accept his son was a criminal but is saying regardless he must have been executed as the tinted windows meant they could not see properly.
So doesn't that prove the point for the police? He had a gun, he could see they were police and appeared to go for his gun and was shot.
Even for Mansfield this case seems open and shut as justified killing. No doubt we will have some trouble on the streets if there is not a verdict they like.
To start the year off with a 'bang' so to speak what we need is for our armed police to be encouraged to get out on the streets and shoot half a dozen of these criminals (real criminals) make a statement of intent.
Make the message loud and clear to them - carry a gun then be prepared to be shot by the authorities.
There is no deterrent here at the moment, the scum are not scared of the police, maybe its time to change that.
Make the message loud and clear to them - carry a gun then be prepared to be shot by the authorities.
There is no deterrent here at the moment, the scum are not scared of the police, maybe its time to change that.
La Liga said:
f the CPS don’t authorise a charge after the IPCC investigation, it’s exceptionally unlikely a private prosecution would uncover / produce further evidence which causes the CPS to change their mind.
Who said anything about me knowing what evidence there is? I don’t need to. My angle was considering what other possible evidence people involved in a PP could bring to the the table that the CPS wouldn’t already have when making their decision. Beyond what I’ve speculated upon already, I can’t see what else someone external could bring given the closed nature of the incident.
Can you predict the lottery numbers as well?Who said anything about me knowing what evidence there is? I don’t need to. My angle was considering what other possible evidence people involved in a PP could bring to the the table that the CPS wouldn’t already have when making their decision. Beyond what I’ve speculated upon already, I can’t see what else someone external could bring given the closed nature of the incident.
At least you've moved from a position of no chance to a possibility. Which is what I said in the first place.
You have no idea what evidence will be uncovered by who, and when. So you have no idea whether a private prosecution could successfully reach the courts or not.
Alpinestars said:
Can you predict the lottery numbers as well?
At least you've moved from a position of no chance to a possibility. Which is what I said in the first place.
You have no idea what evidence will be uncovered by who, and when. So you have no idea whether a private prosecution could successfully reach the courts or not.
The lottery is a good comparison. We don't know for certain, but we have a very good idea we're not going to win. At least you've moved from a position of no chance to a possibility. Which is what I said in the first place.
You have no idea what evidence will be uncovered by who, and when. So you have no idea whether a private prosecution could successfully reach the courts or not.
It's easy for an individual to have a very good idea of what evidence the IPCC will be gathering. Look at previous fatal shooting reports. It's not some great mystery as to whom will be gathering what.
Secondly, if the CPS decide there isn't a realistic prospect of conviction when reviewing the IPCC's investigation, an individual also has a very good idea that a PP won't proceed.
The prospect and probability that a private individual will bring some new and compelling evidence to the table (post comprehensive IPPC investigation) that is going to change the status from 'no realistic prospect of conviction', to, 'a realistic prospect of conviction', is probably inline with lottery odds.
So when I say, 'the CPS will just bin it', I mean it in the same way I'd say, 'you won't win the lottery', or 'North Korea won't nuke the UK'. Not absolute, but extremely improbable.
Maybe the dad thinks that a pp is an ace in the hole, you just pull it out (if you can afford it) and away it goes, they're not very common at all.
Perhaps someone with knowledge can say how/who decides if a pp can take place, does a Judge review it and say go/no go ?
There must be some bar, besides how deep an individual's pockets are.
Perhaps someone with knowledge can say how/who decides if a pp can take place, does a Judge review it and say go/no go ?
There must be some bar, besides how deep an individual's pockets are.
techguyone said:
Maybe the dad thinks that a pp is an ace in the hole, you just pull it out (if you can afford it) and away it goes, they're not very common at all.
Perhaps someone with knowledge can say how/who decides if a pp can take place, does a Judge review it and say go/no go ?
There must be some bar, besides how deep an individual's pockets are.
This is my understanding: Perhaps someone with knowledge can say how/who decides if a pp can take place, does a Judge review it and say go/no go ?
There must be some bar, besides how deep an individual's pockets are.
There are safeguards in place. The defendant (and others) can contact the CPS and request they take over the prosecution. The CPS will then review the PP and can do three things:
1) Leave it to the private prosecutor to continue (if there's no particular need for the CPS to take over),
2) Take over the case and continue it,
3) Take over the case and discontinue it.
With all three they will apply the Full Test Code:
A) Is there a realistic prospect of conviction?
B) Is it in the public interest?
If the Full Test Code isn't satisfied then they will take over and discontinue it.
The 'realistic prospect of conviction' is key. The IPCC are going to present a comprehensive investigation which will lead to the CPS making a charging decision for the officer/s involved.
If they decide there isn't a realistic prospect of conviction based on the IPCC's investigation, what can any private investigator / PP offer that they've not seen that'll be so compelling as to create a realistic prospect of conviction? My view is they won't be able to offer anything and therefore any PP would be discontinued.
The Attorney General also has the power to halt any PP.
La Liga said:
Alpinestars said:
Can you predict the lottery numbers as well?
At least you've moved from a position of no chance to a possibility. Which is what I said in the first place.
You have no idea what evidence will be uncovered by who, and when. So you have no idea whether a private prosecution could successfully reach the courts or not.
The lottery is a good comparison. We don't know for certain, but we have a very good idea we're not going to win. At least you've moved from a position of no chance to a possibility. Which is what I said in the first place.
You have no idea what evidence will be uncovered by who, and when. So you have no idea whether a private prosecution could successfully reach the courts or not.
It's easy for an individual to have a very good idea of what evidence the IPCC will be gathering. Look at previous fatal shooting reports. It's not some great mystery as to whom will be gathering what.
Secondly, if the CPS decide there isn't a realistic prospect of conviction when reviewing the IPCC's investigation, an individual also has a very good idea that a PP won't proceed.
The prospect and probability that a private individual will bring some new and compelling evidence to the table (post comprehensive IPPC investigation) that is going to change the status from 'no realistic prospect of conviction', to, 'a realistic prospect of conviction', is probably inline with lottery odds.
So when I say, 'the CPS will just bin it', I mean it in the same way I'd say, 'you won't win the lottery', or 'North Korea won't nuke the UK'. Not absolute, but [b]extremely improbable. [\b]
No. Ergo, you cannot say that categorically, the CPS will bin a private prosecution.
Or, erhaps you can enlighten us with all the facts now so that we don't waste taxpayers money?
La Liga said:
techguyone said:
Maybe the dad thinks that a pp is an ace in the hole, you just pull it out (if you can afford it) and away it goes, they're not very common at all.
Perhaps someone with knowledge can say how/who decides if a pp can take place, does a Judge review it and say go/no go ?
There must be some bar, besides how deep an individual's pockets are.
This is my understanding: Perhaps someone with knowledge can say how/who decides if a pp can take place, does a Judge review it and say go/no go ?
There must be some bar, besides how deep an individual's pockets are.
There are safeguards in place. The defendant (and others) can contact the CPS and request they take over the prosecution. The CPS will then review the PP and can do three things:
1) Leave it to the private prosecutor to continue (if there's no particular need for the CPS to take over),
2) Take over the case and continue it,
3) Take over the case and discontinue it.
With all three they will apply the Full Test Code:
A) Is there a realistic prospect of conviction?
B) Is it in the public interest?
If the Full Test Code isn't satisfied then they will take over and discontinue it.
The 'realistic prospect of conviction' is key. The IPCC are going to present a comprehensive investigation which will lead to the CPS making a charging decision for the officer/s involved.
If they decide there isn't a realistic prospect of conviction based on the IPCC's investigation, what can any private investigator / PP offer that they've not seen that'll be so compelling as to create a realistic prospect of conviction? My view is they won't be able to offer anything and therefore any PP would be discontinued.
The Attorney General also has the power to halt any PP.
Legally if CPS take over and discontinue, can a PP resurrect it again or is it case closed.
Alpinestars said:
Based on what? Do you have all the relevant evidence? Do you know that the CPS will have all the relevant evidence following the IPCC exercise? Do you know that no one will come forward with other relevant evidence?
Based on my assessment as to how likely it is the IPCC will cover all the bases / certainly have the most heavily weighted evidence vs how likely it'll be a private individual / group will uncover something new and compelling that'd change a charging decision.In summary, it could happen, but I judge it to be extremely unlikely.
Alpinestars said:
No. Ergo, you cannot say that categorically, the CPS will bin a private prosecution.
I'm not categorically saying that. I clarified my initial statement in my last post. techguyone said:
Good answer - thanks for that.
Legally if CPS take over and discontinue, can a PP resurrect it again or is it case closed.
I think it's pretty much the same as a regular CPS prosecution i.e. if the CPS discontinue it there's a 'victims' right to review' and judicial reviews. Legally if CPS take over and discontinue, can a PP resurrect it again or is it case closed.
Jazzy Jag said:
Has anyone actually got the balls to stop this nonsense?
La Liga said:
ow do you mean?
Anyone who stops this will instantly be be branded as racist, all the usual suspects will be demanding their resignation and a few of his followers will probably hold a peaceful riot in the nearest town.Who needs that to deal with when you can just let's it carry on regardless..
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff