Re: Taser cripples copper


"aracari" <spamtrap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:13hp7ip32h3vt5c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 02:30:45 -0700 'Mel Rowing'
wrote this on uk.politics.misc:

So on the assumption that Menzies was not murdered but his killer
sincerely held the belief the he was about to or had the capacity to
explode an explosive device on that train then should he have been
killed or merely restrained?

1.nobody knows if the police shooter held an honest belief about
the danger because the matter has never been tested in court.

It is *my* honest belief that if the matter had gone to court, and
the police shooter was required to demonstrate his honest belief,
that he'd have a very hard time doing so, not least because dM was
already being restrained when he arrived on the scene and we're told
that orders to shoot are always given by the commanding officer but:

The shooter makes the final decision.

Going by what's in the news, I think a jury would acquit the firearms
officers. They were briefed that they would be facing determined and deadly
individuals, who were up for it, who may be hiding explosives under their
clothing, and so on. As they got to the scene, they were told the suspect
was "our man". What else are they to think, other than that this guy was a
lethal threat?

It would be nice if the CPS published its full reason for not prosecuting
the two, as it might confirm my opinion. However, that might prejudice the
Health and Safety trial.

2.Cressida *** is now on record as saying that she did *not* order
anybody to shoot/kill de Menezes, only that he should be stopped.

She was Gold Commander, with overall responsibility for the operation. Her
surveillance team at the scene told her that the suspect was definitely not
Osman, but she chose to believe two people in the same room as her. You do
not brief firearms officers that someone is a deadly threat and then not
expect them to kill him.


.