Are Police immune from being held accountable??

[Dave1987]

Today saw a Police officer cleared of murder of Azelle Rodney in London 10 years ago. I took great interest in this case since it came to light in the press due to having weapons training in my previous short career in the RAF. You have it drilled into you that you will held accountable for every single shot you fire and must honestly believe there is an immediate threat to life for which there is no other way to stop that threat other than firing your weapon. Armed police officers also go by this rule as well.

Having read the details of the case on the news and watched news reports about it, I believed there was no way he could possibly have made that decision properly and probably went in a bit trigger happy and pumped up on adrenaline.

According to the Beeb report from the court he took 0.6 secs to decide to open fire and 2.1 secs to fire 6 rounds. And according to previous reports the CPS decided to prosecute as he had no clear line of sight into the vehicle so would not have been able to see what he claimed he saw. A judge had said previously that the officers account of events should not be believed.

The fact that this officer has been found not guilty makes me have no faith that the police are held accountable for their actions and merely the fact he had a good record for 33 years meant he was let off. Having watched the Met program on Beeb one recently it shows these armed officers seem to be going into situations pumped up on adrenaline almost trying to find a reason to pull the trigger.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-33386224

A police marksman has been cleared of murder 10 years after he shot dead a suspected armed robber.

Azelle Rodney, 24, was killed in Mill Hill, north London, in April 2005.
Anthony Long told the Old Bailey he made the split-second decision to open fire as he thought his colleagues were in "imminent" danger.

Mr Long, 58, allegedly took just six hundredths of a second to open fire on Mr Rodney in a police operation to foil an attempted robbery....

 

[Johnuk123]

He was found not guilty by a jury who sat through the case and heard all the evidence.

 

[Dave1987]

He was found not guilty by a jury who sat through the case and heard all the evidence.

No they didn't, if you read the report certain aspects of the case were not told to the jury.

 

[Johnuk123]

No they didn't, if you read the report certain aspects of the case were not told to the jury.

Maybe, but they certainly know far more about the case than you do.

By the way you say Police here are immune from being held accountable, I don't think there is a Police force in the world who face more scrutiny than ours.

 

[transmanche]

No they didn't, if you read the report certain aspects of the case were not told to the jury.

It's a difficult one and I can see both sides.

As a jury member, you'd like to think you'd been given all the relevant information to help you reach a decision. Whereas I'm guessing the judge felt it more appropriate for the jury to base their decision on the facts as presented in court - and not to be swayed by someone else's opinion on the matter.

 

[chorleyjeff]

No they didn't, if you read the report certain aspects of the case were not told to the jury.

Was the prosecution lawyer prevented from disclosing the certain aspects or did she/he decide the certain aspects would not help get a prosecution?
Jeff

 

[Dave1987]

Maybe, but they certainly know far more about the case than you do.

By the way you say Police here are immune from being held accountable, I don't think there is a Police force in the world who face more scrutiny than ours.

Its called Policing by consent. So the public has to have confidence in the Police force and the only way that is achieved is if the Police are held to account despite what happens elsewhere. Trust in the police has never been lower in this country than it is now.

And the pure fact that facts were withheld from the jury shows they weren't shown the whole facts!

 

[jay3562]

without knowing or considering the inns and outs of this case I think the general point about the police not being held to account is incorrect . The sheer fact that this man stood trial like the numerous other police officers who have stood trial for crimes they have been accused off both during the exercise of their duties and in their personal lives clearly shows that police officers are held to account for things they are accused of .

 

[GB]

0.6 seconds to decide, 2.1 seconds to fire, and a life time of 20/20 hindsight for all and sundry to pick over said decisions.

 

[BanburyBlue]

In normal prosecutions the police/Crown Prosecution Service analyse the evidence and decide which bits they are going to use to support the prosecution. They must tell the defence what they are using, and more importantly, what they are not (especially if the bits they are not are potentially detrimental to their case).

Of course some evidence is potentially inadmissible (for example hearsay), and there are rules around things like disclosing previous convictions etc.

There are case management hearings where the court, the prosecution and the defence discuss and agree what the issues in the case are. This leads to who needs to attend court, and what can be served by written statements. For example, if the defendant agrees they were at the place when and where the crime was committed, you don't need to call lots of witnesses whose only purpose is to identify that they saw the defendant at the scene of the crime.

And it has to be remembered that the jury listen to evidence and have to decide whether the prosecution have proved 'beyond reasonable doubt' that the defendant was guilty.

 

[Dave1987]

0.6 seconds to decide, 2.1 seconds to fire, and a life time of 20/20 hindsight for all and sundry to pick over said decisions.

I'm sorry but I don't agree with your rhetoric. Being in lawful possession of a firearm comes with huge responsibility and the officers concerned should know and understand that their actions will be scrutinised afterwards. If a firearms officer is allowed to say "I feared for my life therefore I fired" in any case in the future, what is to stop them firing at an unarmed person merely because they have their hands in their pockets? If an armed officer isn't capable of assessing the situation before firing and then being scrutinised over that decision then arguably they shouldn't be firearms officers.

 

[meridian2]

I'm sorry but I don't agree with your rhetoric. Being in lawful possession of a firearm comes with huge responsibility and the officers concerned should know and understand that their actions will be scrutinised afterwards. If a firearms officer is allowed to say "I feared for my life therefore I fired" in any case in the future, what is to stop them firing at an unarmed person merely because they have their hands in their pockets? If an armed officer isn't capable of assessing the situation before firing and then being scrutinised over that decision then arguably they shouldn't be firearms officers.

Immaterial; as John said above, the jury found him not guilty.

Your attitude is symptomatic of the post-Stephen Lawrence society, where the police aren't trusted at all. Even if the jury found him guilty, you would still decry that the officer in question should've done more to protect his colleagues. A no-win situation.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I'm sorry but I don't agree with your rhetoric. Being in lawful possession of a firearm comes with huge responsibility and the officers concerned should know and understand that their actions will be scrutinised afterwards. If a firearms officer is allowed to say "I feared for my life therefore I fired" in any case in the future, what is to stop them firing at an unarmed person merely because they have their hands in their pockets? If an armed officer isn't capable of assessing the situation before firing and then being scrutinised over that decision then arguably they shouldn't be firearms officers.

I wonder what your argument would be in the case of the 2012 murder case where a known underworld hitman called Dale Cregan made a telephone call to the police to ask for police officers to attend, then when WPC Nicola Hughes and WPC Fiona Bone attended the call request, they were mown down in a hail of a fire from an automatic weapon, before a grenade was thrown at them.

 

[transmanche]

Your attitude is symptomatic of the post-Stephen Lawrence society, where the police aren't trusted at all.

And with some good reason, when specifically referring to the Metropolitan Police.

The Stephen Lawrence inquiry showed that there were significant 'institutional' (i.e. management) issues with the MPS. Similar management issues were exposed by the De Menezes shooting, where the commander on the day (who is now an Assistant Commissioner) admitted that she could not guarantee that the same thing would not happen again. And following the death of Ian Tomlinson, a review by HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary criticised the way officers were trained for the use of force and the erosion of the British approach to policing based on consent.

It's up to the management (i.e. the senior officers) of the MPS to set the tone, et the training right and ensure that operational commanders have effective control of their officers.(E.g. IMHO that the squad of officers involved in Ian Tomlinson's death did not appear to be under any proper management control.)

I think it's fair to say that many Londoners are not convinced that management have yet done enough to ensure the correct ethos in all of the officers, all of the time.

 

[Dave1987]

Immaterial; as John said above, the jury found him not guilty.

Your attitude is symptomatic of the post-Stephen Lawrence society, where the police aren't trusted at all. Even if the jury found him guilty, you would still decry that the officer in question should've done more to protect his colleagues. A no-win situation.

I do not want to live in a society where armed officers are saying "sweet as, sweet as" as one of their colleagues are firing 6 shots at someone and killing them when they pose no immediate threat to them. I would not trust a Met police officer at all at the moment.

 

[Johnuk123]

I would not trust a Met police officer at all at the moment.

None of them ?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Are Police immune from being held accountable??

Certainly not!

There are a great many prosecutions brought against the Met and other Police Forces. Sometimes, both parties agree to an Out of Court Settlement and sometimes there is a formal apology and/or a confidentiality agreement attached to the settlement, but many of these are allowed to develop into full and lengthy hearings of the Evidence from a number of Witnesses. The Mark Duggan inquiry (note: an inquiry, and not a trial) took a month, and placed several Police Officers under intense scrutiny.

There's another at present which is struggling to accomodate some sort of settlement with ongoing proceedings and which includes an apology by the Police.

 

[Antman]

Today saw a Police officer cleared of murder of Azelle Rodney in London 10 years ago. I took great interest in this case since it came to light in the press due to having weapons training in my previous short career in the RAF. You have it drilled into you that you will held accountable for every single shot you fire and must honestly believe there is an immediate threat to life for which there is no other way to stop that threat other than firing your weapon. Armed police officers also go by this rule as well.

Having read the details of the case on the news and watched news reports about it, I believed there was no way he could possibly have made that decision properly and probably went in a bit trigger happy and pumped up on adrenaline.

According to the Beeb report from the court he took 0.6 secs to decide to open fire and 2.1 secs to fire 6 rounds. And according to previous reports the CPS decided to prosecute as he had no clear line of sight into the vehicle so would not have been able to see what he claimed he saw. A judge had said previously that the officers account of events should not be believed.

The fact that this officer has been found not guilty makes me have no faith that the police are held accountable for their actions and merely the fact he had a good record for 33 years meant he was let off. Having watched the Met program on Beeb one recently it shows these armed officers seem to be going into situations pumped up on adrenaline almost trying to find a reason to pull the trigger.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-33386224

I can't comment on this particular case but you're right it is drummed into armed officers that they will be held accountable for their actions and no officer has to carry arms, if they accept the role they accept the responsibility that goes with it. Generally speaking the police are under far more scrutiny now than at anytime in the past.

 

[Tracky]

Policing in this country depresses me somewhat.

The police service (it is no longer a force) has its hands tied a lot of the time by the CPS who decide what is in the public interest. It also suffers from soft judges and government policy. Criminals laugh at the law.

In this respect the police are often either over cautious, or will deem it not worth their while to tackle issues. That in turn can be perceived by the public as laziness.

As for police mis-conduct they tread a very fine line. In this case, you may well believe the officer was trigger happy. Only those there actually know what happened.

There was a case a few years ago where a police officer was charged with dangerous driving or similar after getting involved in a persuit. The judgement was not guilty in that case and those involved were critical of the fact it got to court and wasted time and taxpayers money.

There is lower level corruption in all areas public life these days. I find the number of people who expect free travel on police IDs staggering. Half of them aren't actually coppers and just work for the police service in admin or support roles.

 

[meridian2]

I do not want to live in a society where armed officers are saying "sweet as, sweet as" as one of their colleagues are firing 6 shots at someone and killing them when they pose no immediate threat to them. I would not trust a Met police officer at all at the moment.

You didn't make the call and he was acquitted. If you felt accountability has to go beyond a court of law, then pursue it independently.

 

[Bevan Price]

If people associate with gangs that have a known reputation / history of possessing / using weapons, then, in my opinion, they have only themselves to blame if they get hurt / shot because police think that innocent bystanders (including themselves) may be under threat of being hurt.

If Mr Rodney was such a person, then my sympathy to his relatives, but people should be careful with whom they associate.

 

[Dave1987]

None of them ?

Over the past few of years we have seen Met Police officers purposefully lied to try and get an MP sacked, a man (Ian Tomlinson) killed because one officer couldn't contain his aggression. Two men shot and killed in dubious circumstances etc etc etc so yeah I'm pretty sure you couldn't tell which ones to trust. Very very sad day. On the Beeb program "The Met" one of the officers admitted he struggles to curb his aggression at times when dealing with people. What ever happened to the Police service where you felt comfortable approaching a police officer.....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If people associate with gangs that have a known reputation / history of possessing / using weapons, then, in my opinion, they have only themselves to blame if they get hurt / shot because police think that innocent bystanders (including themselves) may be under threat of being hurt.

If Mr Rodney was such a person, then my sympathy to his relatives, but people should be careful with whom they associate.

So if someone reported a group for possibly having a firearm even though it might be something completely innocent and the armed officers attend, one of the group has his hands in his pockets and an officer opens fire because he believes he might have a weapon even though there is no immediate risk to life is that ok? Just because there is a belief they may have a weapon is no reason to open fire until there is a genuine risk to life.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You didn't make the call and he was acquitted. If you felt accountability has to go beyond a court of law, then pursue it independently.

Yes and he was acquitted, which I believe is completely wrong as he actions go against everything you are taught in firearms training. And the "sweet as, sweet as" comments show the attitude of the officers.

 

[Bevan Price]

Over the past few of years we have seen Met Police officers purposefully lied to try and get an MP sacked, a man (Ian Tomlinson) killed because one officer couldn't contain his aggression. Two men shot and killed in dubious circumstances etc etc etc so yeah I'm pretty sure you couldn't tell which ones to trust. Very very sad day. On the Beeb program "The Met" one of the officers admitted he struggles to curb his aggression at times when dealing with people. What ever happened to the Police service where you felt comfortable approaching a police officer.....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


So if someone reported a group for possibly having a firearm even though it might be something completely innocent and the armed officers attend, one of the group has his hands in his pockets and an officer opens fire because he believes he might have a weapon even though there is no immediate risk to life is that ok? Just because there is a belief they may have a weapon is no reason to open fire until there is a genuine risk to life.

As I wrote - if the gang has a known history of using / possessing weapons, then associate with them at your own risk.

 

[jay3562]

So if someone reported a group for possibly having a firearm even though it might be something completely innocent and the armed officers attend, one of the group has his hands in his pockets and an officer opens fire because he believes he might have a weapon even though there is no immediate risk to life is that ok? Just because there is a belief they may have a weapon is no reason to open fire until there is a genuine risk to life.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That however is not the scenario in this case that saw the officer acquitted and so I fail to see its relevance to discussions around this case .

As I wrote - if the gang has a known history of using / possessing weapons, then associate with them at your own risk.

Exactly and as anybody who has read further into this case will know 3 weapons where found in the car so obviously there intelligence was somewhat accurate and there was good reason to believe that there was a threat from the occupants of the car .

 

[Busaholic]

The current BBC1 series following aspects of the Metropolitan Police has been fairly illuminating, perhaps almost by chance, the first episode, focussing on the Tottenham area in the aftermath of the post-Mark Duggan 'riots', especially so. The faces on those policemen and lawyers as Duggan's inquest jury's decision decided Duggan had chucked the gun he was carrying into the bushes prior to being shot were very revealing: they obviously then expected the worst, from the police point of view, and seemed genuinely stunned when the jury decided that Duggan had been lawfully killed!

I don't want to say anymore on the subject, but urge anyone interested in the subject of the police on the one hand and criminal overlords on the other to follow very carefully developments in any enquiries into the death of one John Palmer in North Weald, Essex last week. Palmer's is a name I knew well from the 1980s in Bristol. He owned jewellery shops in Bristol and his name was forever in the local press in possible connection with the Brinks-Matt robbery, although tempered by libel laws. of course. His 'connections' were legion, and he was suspected of murder too, but never charged with anything. Later he received a derisory sentence for timeshare fraud in Mallorca (primarily).If you see him on video talking about Matts-Brink (ha!ha! John, very droll) see if you don't agree that, just occasionally, you can judge a book by its cover and, in his case, the stench of utter evil was all pervasive. Trouble is, he's gone but his successors live on. Meanwhile, the Essex police are hot on the heels of his murderer, having not spotted the bullet holes originally!

 

[transmanche]

As I wrote - if the gang has a known history of using / possessing weapons, then associate with them at your own risk.

This is Britain in the 21st century, not some Wild West town in the 1800s...

So if someone reported a group for possibly having a firearm even though it might be something completely innocent and the armed officers attend, one of the group has his hands in his pockets and an officer opens fire because he believes he might have a weapon even though there is no immediate risk to life is that ok? Just because there is a belief they may have a weapon is no reason to open fire until there is a genuine risk to life.

Something very similar to this has already happened. Harry Stanley, shot dead by MPS officers in Hackney back in 1999.

Stanley was carrying a plastic bag, in which he had a table leg that had been repaired by his brother earlier that day. On his way home from the pub, he was challenged (from behind) by two MPS officers who were responding to a call from a member of the public about "an Irishman with a gun wrapped in a bag". As he turned around, he was shot dead at close range.

Although an inquest jury brought in a verdict of unlawful killing, this was overturned by the High Court. No charges were brought against the officers involved.

 

[the sniper]

Over the past few of years we have seen Met Police officers purposefully lied to try and get an MP sacked, a man (Ian Tomlinson) killed because one officer couldn't contain his aggression. Two men shot and killed in dubious circumstances etc etc etc so yeah I'm pretty sure you couldn't tell which ones to trust. Very very sad day.

Maybe one of the 31,000+ Met PCs that weren't involved in any of these incidents...?

Do you view judge the British Armed Forces by the same standard? You must truly have an awful impression of 'our boys'... what a shame your collective guilt equation makes them all vile human beings. Drowning people in rivers, torturing and murdering people in custody, shooting clearly unarmed civilians, dishing out hateful, humiliating beatings... What happened to the days when you didn't just assume a soldier is a war criminal?

:roll:

On the Beeb program "The Met" one of the officers admitted he struggles to curb his aggression at times when dealing with people.

The Met employ humans?! Who knew...

What ever happened to the Police service where you felt comfortable approaching a police officer.....

You changed your perception of the Police on the basis of a dozen highly publicised incidents, most of which were mistakes of varying degrees, committed largely by people who are no longer in the Police as a result of their actions. Incidents which make up a minuscule fraction of the total number of incidents that would have been dealt with by the Met Police over the last couple of years.

 

[DownSouth]

without knowing or considering the inns and outs of this case I think the general point about the police not being held to account is incorrect . The sheer fact that this man stood trial like the numerous other police officers who have stood trial for crimes they have been accused off both during the exercise of their duties and in their personal lives clearly shows that police officers are held to account for things they are accused of .

But if the prosecution puts in a lacklustre effort, simply going to trial isn't good enough.

Some other places (e.g. the State of California) have rules about handing prosecutions involving police officers (or even prominent lawyers) over to the authorities in another city, to avoid local prosecutors being compromised by a conflict of interest. If they were to put in a full effort at the prosecution, a local prosecutor would be likely to find their job difficult when they have to work with the officer's force on a regular basis when cops stick together.

 

[jay3562]

But if the prosecution puts in a lacklustre effort, simply going to trial isn't good enough.

Some other places (e.g. the State of California) have rules about handing prosecutions involving police officers (or even prominent lawyers) over to the authorities in another city, to avoid local prosecutors being compromised by a conflict of interest. If they were to put in a full effort at the prosecution, a local prosecutor would be likely to find their job difficult when they have to work with the officer's force on a regular basis when cops stick together.

Thats a pretty heavy allegation to be making against the prosecution , do you have any evidence to backup the allegation that the prosecution in this case put in minimal effort both in preparing the case and during their advocacy in the court room . Or are you merely speculating ?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The Jean-Charles de Menezes case was mentioned upthread, and the 10th anniversary of that incident (and the other events in the two weeks preceding it) is approaching. This particular case was, on the one hand, illustrative of the difficulties police have when they have to make snap decisions on how to react to a potential threat. The part that didn't sit so easily with me was the way that the Met's public relations team went into overdrive while de Menezes' body was still warm: within minutes, statements came out that the man had been wearing a heavy coat that was inappropriate for July (he was in fact wearing a light jacket, entirely appropriate for someone used to a warmer climate); that he'd jumped over the ticket barriers (CCTV footage later showed him swiping his Oystercard as normal); and that he ran when Police gave chase and didn't respond to their shouts (he was moving at a normal pace and using headphones so most likely did not hear the police). Whilst I can entirely appreciate that given the events of two weeks previously, the police would have been on edge and particularly sensitive to a perceived terror threat, the fact that they then lied to the press, to the public, and to Mr. de Menezes' friends and family so soon after the event, did a huge amount of damage to public trust in the Metropolitan Police. Whilst in this case, homicide charges against the officer who fired the shots would probably have been unfair, the fact that nobody in the chain of command was held accountable for the mistakes and subsequent lies leaves a VERY bitter taste in the mouth.