Re: Taser cripples copper


"aracari" <spamtrap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:13hpnlcanjop496@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:06:57 +0100 'TD'
wrote this on uk.politics.misc:

"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.

ok. hhmmm 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.

But is his briefing relevant to the case in that he should have made
his own personal assessment on-the-spot? Surely a briefing is only
to describe/run through the general situation?

Which bit of the law says you have to make a personal assessment?

All you need is an 'honest belief' (and that belief was reasonably held). I
describe what might form an 'honest belief' below.

I'm not aware of any evidence that the shooter will have seen
that could lead to an honest belief. Finding dM on the train being
restrained by ano police officer does not in itself create an honest
belief ... all it does is to confirm that they have gone to the
right station and located a suspect who was being followed earlier.

The shooter should then be required to assess the risk before taking
lethal action. But he didn't do that afaict - he simply ran into the
train and fired off his gun 8 times at point blank range.

He wasn't explicitly required by the law to assess the risk.

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.

Meaning that the CPS have the power to put the law to one side if
they don't think a conviction is likely - or if it's inconvenient.

Pretty much, yes.

Surely it shouldn't be for them to 2nd guess a court and a jury?

Well, the 'public interest test' forms part of a decision to prosecute. I
think we need someone deciding what and what doesn't go to trial to some
extent.

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.

I understand that problem but when a person's life is at stake...

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.

It was a very melodramatic moment I believe!

And in essence you are agreeing that the shooter failed in his duty
as you've said earlier, since he did not assess the risk and did not
formulate an honest belief himself from his own observations.

No, I don't agree that he failed in his duty. By the looks of things he
performed it admirably.

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

I heard all sorts of claims made...

That sounds reasonable to me, and it seems relevant to their duty of care to
the public. If they enter into situations where it is likely that a person
will die, and if it is more likely that a person will die if he does not
understand the instructions because he is honest and law-abiding, I think
that needs to be looked at pretty urgently.

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.

You seem clearly willing to accept that the shooter can rely on
'what he was told' as a defence, yet you agree that he should assess
the situation himself on-the-spot and draw his own honest belief
from the circumstances.

No, I don't agree.

It seems to me a few things _can_ reasonably form an honest belief:

1. His briefing;
2. His orders, any information given to him subsequent to the briefing;
3. His assessment of the situation.

Would a jury find that he could have held an 'honest belief' about the
suspect with very little to no time for making an assessment himself?

I think it would.

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?

You are describing what is allowed to happen in the muddled area
of police accountability.

I thought I was quoting from their briefing.

Would you believe them or not?

IMHO the law needs to be changed to remove all doubt that it is
always the shooter who must formulate his own honest belief based
upon his findings at the scene, and then to be accountable for that.

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.

Indeed but they pre-empted a court requiring him to explain how
he came to have an honest belief and how he failed in his duty to
assess the risk on-the-spot before firing his gun off.

A presumption of guilt, in other words.

That doesn't seem right.

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).

Well afaict she was disclaiming all responsibility for the shooting
incident or for having given orders to kill. She also denied using
any Kratos code words which mean *shoot to kill* or whatever.

Indeed.

Can you see how flawed this whole murky business is?

Absolutely.

The case of James Ashley is very instructive.

Another one??? OMG!

Although I believe that the police shooter seriously failed in his
duty, the most positive thing which could come out this incident is
for the law to be modified to remove any doubt whatsoever that it
is always the shooter who is required to make his own on-the-spot
assessment and to take responsibility for his actions in law,
regardless of what his briefings contained. The 'honest belief'
get-out must be supported by evidence and subject to court scrutiny.

I disagree, especially with the bit about presumption of guilt.

I see no action whatsoever in this direction, so exactly the same
confusion could arise next week or next month.


.