Re: Taser cripples copper


"aracari" <spamtrap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:13hpg6mg9c2f46f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:53:03 +0100 'TD'
wrote this on uk.politics.misc:

"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.

In the sense that he pulls the trigger but .....
I thought we had established in previous debates that the shooter
probably derived his honest belief based upon what his orders were
...or what he had been told by his commanding officer.

Yes, plus his briefing.

So, if he was told "kill him, he's the bomber", then he would do
so without further ado.

I don't believe the words "kill him, he's a bomber" alone could give rise to
an 'honest belief'. I do not think that is 'reasonable'.

But we do know a little bit about their briefing. Based on what we know, I
think a jury would reach the conclusion that it was reasonable to 'honestly
believe' the suspect was a deadly threat.

You will recall that my view is that the shooter should always be
the person who makes the decision and should then be accountable
for it. His honest belief assessment would be his defence.

That is already the case in law - but not CPS policy.

His training should cover making risk assessments, which in practice
should really amount to identifying what it is about the person
which leads to an honest belief that he is an imminent danger.

It may well do, but I sympathise with the point of view that if you have
been briefed in a particular way, and you are late to the scene, you will go
with your superiors' assessment of the situation.

From the evidence in this case, it appears that he made no risk
assessment at all and just went in with his gun blazing the moment
he arrived on the platform/train.

A little melodramatic, but essentially true.

(Although the IPCC said, IIRC, that they issued a challenge, albeit one that
no honest law-abiding person could reasonably understand).

I think it's reasonable to assume
that he had every intention of killing de Menezes from a very early
stage and that he had no intention of making any assessment.

Agreed.

So the same old question arises: what evidence does he have which
led him to acquire an honest belief? Obviously the answer is none
other than what he was told, but the CPS saw fit not to take the
matter to court.

Agreed, which seems fair enough to me.

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?

I cannot see how any of that should allow him to acquire an honest
belief about the guy. Based upon what you have said above, it is the
shooter who is supposed to assess the situation for himself and in
doing so should not allow comments from others to influence his own
on-the-spot assessment, especially when a person's life is at stake.

I disagree. If your superiors, people you trust, drum it into you that the
guy you will face is deadly and determined, up for it, possibly carrying
concealed explosives, the man from the attempted bombings the previous day,
are you saying that you wouldn't believe them?

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.

IIRC the CPS already announced their decision was based upon their
view that the shooter would use the 'honest belief' get out.

Anyone can use that, so that's no excuse for the CPS not prosecuting. See
Tony Martin for example.

The CPS said, in short, that they could not prove BRD that the shooters did
not believe de Menezes was a deadly threat, so they were not going to
prosecute.

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.

She said otherwise ... elaborating that the term *stop* is a common
term used by police to mean restrain etc but not an order to shoot
to kill.IIUC she was clearly disclaiming liability for the decision.

In such a circumstance, if you give a firearms officer the 'honest belief'
that a person is a deadly threat that person is likely to be killled. She
cannot evade responsibility for that (although I do not know how she can be
held responsible in law).

Can you see how flawed this whole murky business is?

Absolutely.

The case of James Ashley is very instructive.


.