Re: Taser cripples copper


"aracari" <spamtrap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:13hs83a25jsia62@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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:

<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.

I'm assuming for the sake of argument they honestly believed he was.

<snip>

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.

I don't want the Met fined, as you know it would just move our taxes from
one column to another.

As I said, the trial is revealing a lot of information we weren't privy to
before.

Its conclusion may well lead to resignations, changes in policy or training,
and so on.

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

Absolutely right. We then have an inquest, and see what happens there.

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.

I still think it's bizarre.

Suppose a suspect _does_ have easily conceable explosives. The firearms
officer is told he is definitely a lethal threat. He is ordered to shoot.
But he cannot establish for himself that the suspect is a threat such that
lethal force is reasonable. If the firearms officer uses lethal force,
under your system he has committed murder. That doesn't seem fair.

<snip>
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*.

I know but the firearms officers (as far as we know from the media reports
of the trial) weren't to know, were they? Not with people in operations
telling them he was "our man".


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Menenez cops resume operational duties
    ... you do not believe he is a threat'. ... to know that there is a lethal threat than the officer with the gun. ... Then I have a lot of sympathy for the firearms officer, ... "I had an honest belief that 'X' was a lethal threat because the DSO ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Taser cripples copper
    ... 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. ... His honest belief assessment would be his defence. ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: Taser cripples copper
    ... 1.nobody knows if the police shooter held an honest belief about ... the police shooter was required to demonstrate his honest belief, ... Yes, plus his briefing. ... Which bit of the law says you have to make a personal assessment? ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: Stockwell 2 IPCC report
    ... Uno-Hoo! ... When they could see he was not carrying a bomb, ... believed he was an *immediate* lethal threat and no lesser force ... very fact that they recieved those orders was enough to give them the honest ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Taser cripples copper
    ... 1.nobody knows if the police shooter held an honest belief about ... the police shooter was required to demonstrate his honest belief, ... Which bit of the law says you have to make a personal assessment? ...
    (uk.politics.misc)