Re: Taser cripples copper


On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:39:18 +0100 'TD'
wrote this on uk.politics.misc:

"aracari" <spamtrap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:13hqatac0tdot69@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:24:06 +0100 'TD'
wrote this on uk.politics.misc:

"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?

This is where you and I often get at cross purposes.
I am referring to how I believe the law *should* operate, not
necessarily how it does at present, hence my call for a change
in the law.

Sorry, it's just that it looks like you are talking about how it operates at
present when you write "is", instead of "should".

Yes, I have only a little doubt that the sequence of events that
occurred after the event were within the law but I find them totally
unsatisfactory as you know. I believe there is much room to modify
the law...

<snip>
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.

By shooting an innocent man when he had not been told to do so
and had not assessed the risk on-the-spot himself? hhmmm.
Are you judging his admirable performance by shooting accuracy?
or the number of shots he managed to fire off in 10 seconds?

No, by the fact that the 'lethal threat' was killed.

Except that he was not a lethal threat.

(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.

The H&S trial is a farce IMVHO and makes a mockery of justice.

FGS an innocent young man had his head blown off and all we can
do is prosecute the police for possible H&S violations?

If, for the sake of argument, we accept that the firearms officers honestly
believed he was a lethal threat (for whatever reason), how else can we hold
the police responsible? What would you charge them with?

Well as I've described in some detail before and elsewhere, the
police shooter *must* be able to explain to the satisfaction of a
court how he came to have an honest belief that dM was a lethal
threat.


I'm all for this trial. It has brought to light a lot of information
(albeit information that might emerge at the inquest).

The most that will happen is that the police are found guilty of
H&S violations and might be fined and it might leave some egg
on the faces of a few police chiefs. Guess who pays the fine.

It does nothing to establish culpability for the killing of dM
which was clearly unjustified and wrong in the circumstances.


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.

I don't agree with 1 and 2. Agree with 3.

I'm sorry but I find that quite bizarre.

I was referring to an honest belief acceptable to the law, not what
the shooter might have permitted to influence him. Only 3. should
be acceptable under law.

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.

Maybe but it would be a false honest belief because it would not
have been arrived at after a correct assessment.

Seems a bit unreasonable.

<snip>
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.

You've raised this before. It isn't so much a presumption of guilt
but a simple fact that the shooter killed a man and therefore must
explain himself to a court. This is a case where the shooter does
not deny killing, the only debate is whether it was justified or
not.

But we only bring people to court when they are charged with someone.
Killing a person isn't in itself a crime. It's the circumstance that makes
it a crime (or not).

Indeed. I have explained in some more detail in another post how
I believe the law *should* operate. It certainly requires change in
the law.

It's like you and I being caught in a speedtrap - we are essentially
presumed guilty unless we throw up sufficient mitigation.

Nope.

It's not
the same as a shoplifter who denies stealing but is assumed guilty
unless he proves his innocence.

I do see a difference in these situations.

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.

So we are left with the shooter believing that dM had to be killed
and acquiring an honest belief, but nobody really knows where it
came from apart from some briefings in an office hours ago.

Well, and subsequent communications that dM was "our man" and so on.

Which was all wrong as we know...and apparently there was little or
no evidence to prove that he was *our man*.

--
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims
may be the most oppressive .....C S Lewis.
.