Are Police immune from being held accountable??

[Dave1987]

But you are moving the goalposts. A kid with a BB gun is as much of a threat to the police as someone who they honestly believe to be armed.

So how can you be so sure one is right and the other wrong?

Just because you believe someone may be armed doesn't mean they constitute an immediate threat to life. If a kid is holding a BB gun that you believe to be real and pointing it at you that constitutes an imminent threat to life.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Armed police are experienced officers who work under great pressure and are subject to great training and, indeed, scrutiny. The number of instances of one of these officers having to shoot a person is very, very small. However when it does, it is important that they are able to make the decision to do so without hesitating over the possible legal implications it may have on themselves. If a small proportion of the incidents where shots have to be fired (which is so small in the grand scheme of things itself it is barely quantifiable) result in a person who was not a threat being killed then the officer's judgement has to be respected and accepted.

It would be a terrible day if someone from Islamic State were able to kill many people with a device, and a police officer who had the opportunity to kill the terrorist before the event hesitated over doing so because they thought "what if?".

that would definitely lead to an American style of policing. Shoot first ask questions later. That would be tantamount to giving officers a license to kill anyone if their judgments were not scrutinised.

 

[Flamingo]

This officers was scrutinised- by a judge and jury, in a full criminal trial. Now whilst that is not infallible, it's as good as it gets in this country.

I'd be more concerned as to why a trained firearms officer missed with 25% of his aimed shots...

 

[Dave1987]

This officers was scrutinised- by a judge and jury, in a full criminal trial. Now whilst that is not infallible, it's as good as it gets in this country.

I'd be more concerned as to why a trained firearms officer missed with 25% of his aimed shots...

But this trial certainly gives me doubts as whether armed officers are being held accountable by courts. It seems to me like the jury just accepted the fact that the officer claimed that he thought Rodney posed an imminent threat and because he had 33 yrs of experience his judgment shouldn't be questioned even though the evidence suggests that Rodney did not present an immediate threat to life. If armed officers are allowed to let their adrenaline get the better of them and get trigger happy you may as well scrap the rules for when they are allowed to fire, and just let them fire when they feel like it.

To those of who disagree with me do you believe officers should be able to shoot people when they want to? Or should they be bound by the laws of an imminent threat to life?

 

[Johnuk123]

But this trial certainly gives me doubts as whether armed officers are being held accountable by courts. It seems to me like the jury just accepted the fact that the officer claimed that he thought Rodney posed an imminent threat and because he had 33 yrs of experience his judgment shouldn't be questioned even though the evidence suggests that Rodney did not present an immediate threat to life. If armed officers are allowed to let their adrenaline get the better of them and get trigger happy you may as well scrap the rules for when they are allowed to fire, and just let them fire when they feel like it.

To those of who disagree with me do you believe officers should be able to shoot people when they want to? Or should they be bound by the laws of an imminent threat to life?

Might as well wrap this thread up now because it's just going round in circles. You keep saying Police officers aren't accountable for their actions, they plainly are but you don't believe they are so no point in talking any more.

 

[Chew Chew]

Certainly up here in Scotland ever since Police Scotland was formed they appear to be immune from being held accountable. The use of 'stop and search' here is 4 times higher than anywhere else in the UK.

The Scottish Government have been lacklustre in doing anything about it, and Willie Rennie MSP has called the new force 'Not Fit for Purpose.'

Between April and December 2013 there were 519,213 searches in Scotland, whereas the Met had 312,645...Quite a difference!

They have now been referred to the UN regarding this as time after time they have been told get a grip on it, but as usual it falls on deaf ears.

I was stopped and searched twice on the same day within half an hour of each other.

First time the police alleged they thought I was giving alcohol to children, the only thing I had on me was a bottle of Irn Bru and said group of children were 30 yards ahead of me and I had never spoken to them.

Second time they said they thought I had been dealing drugs, I was actually handing over a ticket to my mate to get him into a football ground.

I put in complaints about them both and the police just completely whitewashed it.

If a policeman with all his training was sure he was doing the right thing but made a genuine error I would have no problem at all whoever was killed.

I'm sure you'd say exactly the same thing if it was a friend or relative of yours.....

Or for the armed forces, which you seem to ignore. Do you also not trust the entire British Army?

I don't. We've seen what they are capable of in the past.

 

[NSEFAN]

But this trial certainly gives me doubts as whether armed officers are being held accountable by courts. It seems to me like the jury just accepted the fact that the officer claimed that he thought Rodney posed an imminent threat and because he had 33 yrs of experience his judgment shouldn't be questioned even though the evidence suggests that Rodney did not present an immediate threat to life. If armed officers are allowed to let their adrenaline get the better of them and get trigger happy you may as well scrap the rules for when they are allowed to fire, and just let them fire when they feel like it.

My understanding is that prosecutors are in general very weak in this country, and defence is usually well organised. My only interaction with the courts was jury service a few years ago, and this was certainly the impression I got. Combined with other word-of-mouth stories I may of course be getting the wrong impression, however bearing in mind weak prosecution the outcome is not so surprising. I would agree with others that the fact that due process has occurred demonstrates that police are very much accountable for their actions. If the "wrong result" comes out the court then that's more likely the fault of the prosecution, not the overall process itself.

To those of who disagree with me do you believe officers should be able to shoot people when they want to? Or should they be bound by the laws of an imminent threat to life?

I agree with your sentiment that shots should only be fired when there is imminent threat to life. In fact police shoot outs seem to be quite rare in this country so it is perhaps more shocking when they do occur. Whilst in hindsight the police officer may have made the wrong choice in your view, it is not possible to set an exact definition of when life is at threat in every scenario. It is very easy for us to make judgements with hindsight but this is not an option for the officer in the heat of the moment. The jury found the officer not guilty in light of the evidence presented, which is I think as much as we can reasonably ask for.

 

[Dave1987]

Might as well wrap this thread up now because it's just going round in circles. You keep saying Police officers aren't accountable for their actions, they plainly are but you don't believe they are so no point in talking any more.

I've put forward a very reasoned argument that you don't agree with. I don't believe armed officers are being held accountable and others agree with me.

 

[Flamingo]

I've put forward a very reasoned argument that you don't agree with. I don't believe armed officers are being held accountable and others agree with me.

And others disagree...

As regards this particular case, I take the view that if the scumbag in question had not been in a car containing weapons, on his way to shoot up other scumbags, he would not have been shot. I'd say it comes under the heading of "Big Boys Rules", and I do not see any reason why the police should have waited for it to become a two-way range. If it becomes a fair fight, then somebody made a mistake in their planning.

You say you received weapons training in the RAF. When you were on the gate in RAF Aldergrove watching the barrier going up and down, and a car crashed through the barrier aiming for you, would you have waited until the four guys wearing balaclava's in the car had actually got out and started shooting at you before opening fire?

If you don't like a jury trial, then what other options are there?

 

[Dave1987]

My understanding is that prosecutors are in general very weak in this country, and defence is usually well organised. My only interaction with the courts was jury service a few years ago, and this was certainly the impression I got. Combined with other word-of-mouth stories I may of course be getting the wrong impression, however bearing in mind weak prosecution the outcome is not so surprising. I would agree with others that the fact that due process has occurred demonstrates that police are very much accountable for their actions. If the "wrong result" comes out the court then that's more likely the fault of the prosecution, not the overall process itself.


I agree with your sentiment that shots should only be fired when there is imminent threat to life. In fact police shoot outs seem to be quite rare in this country so it is perhaps more shocking when they do occur. Whilst in hindsight the police officer may have made the wrong choice in your view, it is not possible to set an exact definition of when life is at threat in every scenario. It is very easy for us to make judgements with hindsight but this is not an option for the officer in the heat of the moment. The jury found the officer not guilty in light of the evidence presented, which is I think as much as we can reasonably ask for.

Considering we are taking about an officer shooting someone dead you can't just say that in hindsight he shouldn't have shot. Anyone who reads the details of this case cannot say that Long could clearly of seen what he claimed to have. A judge said that Long's version of events could not be relied upon. Hopefully we won't here about any of these scenarios in the future.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And others disagree...

As regards this particular case, I take the view that if the scumbag in question had not been in a car containing weapons, on his way to shoot up other scumbags, he would not have bern shot. I'd say it comes under the heading of "Big Boys Rules", and I do not see any reason why the police should have waited for it to become a two-way range. If it becomes a fair fight, then somebody made a mistake in their planning.

You say you received weapons training in the RAF. When you were on the gate in RAF Aldergrove watching the barrier going up and down, and a car crashed through the barrier aiming for you, would you have waited until the four guys wearing balaclava's in the car had actually got out and started shooting at you before opening fire?

If you don't like a jury trial, then what other options are there?

I never mentioned about not liking a jury trial did I? The jury were not given all the evidence apparently.

Seriously this about officers firing when there is not an imminent threat to life and then perceivably not being held accountable for that. You can recall all kinds of instances when there was an imminent threat to life and shots were fired justifiably. Are you happy for armed officers to fire when they feel like it? Fire because they think the suspect is a scumbag and deserves it?

 

[transmanche]

This officers was scrutinised- by a judge and jury, in a full criminal trial. Now whilst that is not infallible, it's as good as it gets in this country.

Absolutely. Juries are made up of ordinary people like us, people who will already have opinions about the accountability of the police. Some will believe that an armed officer should only shoot if there is only a very clear and imminent threat to life. Others might feel armed officers should enjoy some sort of immunity for making mistakes, even if it results in the death of an unarmed and/or completely innocent person. And the random nature of jury selection means we have no idea about the attitudes and beliefs of the jurors in this case.

Jury trials are far from perfect, but are probably the least-worst option in a democratic society.

I'd be more concerned as to why a trained firearms officer missed with 25% of his aimed shots...

Indeed.

 

[Dave1987]

Absolutely. Juries are made up of ordinary people like us, people who will already have opinions about the accountability of the police. Some will believe that an armed officer should only shoot if there is only a very clear and imminent threat to life. Others might feel armed officers should enjoy some sort of immunity for making mistakes, even if it results in the death of an unarmed and/or completely innocent person. And the random nature of jury selection means we have no idea about the attitudes and beliefs of the jurors in this case.

Jury trials are far from perfect, but are probably the least-worst option in a democratic society.

Indeed.

Its a very sad day for our country if police officers are given immunity when innocent or unarmed people are being shot dead as a result. May as well withdraw the rules and give them freedom to shoot who they want to.

 

[Flamingo]

Its a very sad day for our country if police officers are given immunity when innocent or unarmed people are being shot dead as a result. May as well withdraw the rules and give them freedom to shoot who they want to.

In this case, the man who was shot was neither innocent or unarmed...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Considering we are taking about an officer shooting someone dead you can't just say that in hindsight he shouldn't have shot. Anyone who reads the details of this case cannot say that Long could clearly of seen what he claimed to have. A judge said that Long's version of events could not be relied upon. Hopefully we won't here about any of these scenarios in the future.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I never mentioned about not liking a jury trial did I? The jury were not given all the evidence apparently.

Seriously this about officers firing when there is not an imminent threat to life and then perceivably not being held accountable for that. You can recall all kinds of instances when there was an imminent threat to life and shots were fired justifiably. Are you happy for armed officers to fire when they feel like it? Fire because they think the suspect is a scumbag and deserves it?

What evidence was withheld? In cases like this, the evidence withheld might include evidence of the deceased's previous convictions...

Given the fact that cases like this are rare enough to warrant this kind of discussion, I'd say there is no evidence of a free-fire zone from armed police.

The opposite, in fact. In the case a few years ago where the police had a chap cornered who had already shot a policeman, they showed commendable restraint. In the US, he would have been told to drop the gun once, then shot.

 

[TheEdge]

Through all this, I think we should be grateful for the country we live in, where by and large neither police nor civilians carry guns (I do wish they'd get rid of the ones at St Pancras)

The London terminals generally have more armed police but St Pancras will have more given the fact it is an international border.

 

[NSEFAN]

Its a very sad day for our country if police officers are given immunity when innocent or unarmed people are being shot dead as a result. May as well withdraw the rules and give them freedom to shoot who they want to.

But nobody is giving them carte blanche to shoot who they want. The officer was indeed sent to court to explain his actions, isn't that enough? For whatever reason, the jury came to the "wrong" conclusion in your opinion but you really are reading into it too much if you think that officers will now be allowed to go nuts and gun down anyone they want.

As you've said, let's hope we hear about no more such incidents. There will always be ones that slip through the net but let us have some perspective here. The fact we haven't got wild-west policing like the Americans, involving crazy shoot-outs with automatic weapons, suggests to me that our officers are under a lot more scrutiny than you are suggesting.

 

[transmanche]

Its a very sad day for our country if police officers are given immunity when innocent or unarmed people are being shot dead as a result.

Well (as you may have gathered from my other posts in this thread) that's not something I'd subscribe to.

 

[ainsworth74]

]The opposite, in fact. In the case a few years ago where the police had a chap cornered who had already shot a policeman, they showed commendable restraint. In the US, he would have been told to drop the gun once, then shot.

Then there's this from West Midlands police.

 

[Dave1987]

Then there's this from West Midlands police.

The lad chucked the gun (be it toy or not) immediately on the ground when challenged so no immediate threat to life. Handled perfectly. Had the lad pointed at police they would have had reason to fire.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Guys can I point out the reason I started this thread was because an armed officer shot dead a man when he arguably had no right to do so as there was no imminent threat to life. He was acquitted of murder so for me he was not held accountable for that.

There are numerous incidents were officers behaved exactly as they should but the times when they haven't and have been perceivably trigger happy they have got away with it, even though someone is dead because of their actions.

I'm sure that most officers are perfectly professional, but I would like to hope they realise they will be prosecuted for murder and jailed if they fire when there is no immediate threat to life. That way we will not get innocent and/or unarmed people killed by armed police. We do not want to get into a position the Americans are in, shoot first ask questions later.

 

[DarloRich]

Clearly not, since they have failed the 'trial by armchair expert'.

Well indeed - the issue seems to be not that the police were held accountable but that they weren't found guilty!

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.

I have highlighted the key points here. The policeman has been held accountable for every shot fired AND the jury decided he had grounds to suspect there was an imminent threat to life.

 

[Dave1987]

Well indeed - the issue seems to be not that the police were held accountable but that they weren't found guilty!



I have highlighted the key points here. The policeman has been held accountable for every shot fired AND the jury decided he had grounds to suspect there was an imminent threat to life.

That's why a judge stated his version of events could not be relied upon and should not be believed. It's clear that we are going to disagree on this.

One hopes that there aren't any other trigger happy firearms officers out there and this doesn't happen again.

 

[DarloRich]

That's why a judge stated his version of events could not be relied upon and should not be believed. It's clear that we are going to disagree on this.

One hopes that there aren't any other trigger happy firearms officers out there and this doesn't happen again.

Now i am no lover of the police but this policeman has, without doubt, been held accountable. Your initial question is refuted by this court case!

Is the main problem that you think the police officer "got off"? That is a different statement to not being held accountable!

 

[TheKnightWho]

Now i am no lover of the police but this policeman has, without doubt, been held accountable. Your initial question is refuted by this court case!

Is the main problem that you think the police officer "got off"? That is a different statement to not being held accountable!

I am making no judgement on this particular incident, but you cannot equate a formal inquiry with being held suitably accountable. Whilst the intent is ostensibly there, I feel the grievance here is that Dave1987 feels the system isn't up to the job.

 

[DarloRich]

I am making no judgement on this particular incident, but you cannot equate a formal inquiry with being held suitably accountable. Whilst the intent is ostensibly there, I feel the grievance here is that Dave1987 feels the system isn't up to the job.

the policeman was tried (and cleared) by a jury at The Old Bailey. I cant see much more accountability than that!

The issue, i maintain, is the not guilty verdict. You are basically saying that trial by jury isn't up to the job.

 

[Smudger105e]

The issue, i maintain, is the not guilty verdict. You are basically saying that trial by jury isn't up to the job.

Surely that depends on if the Jury were supplied with the full facts? Also it was a majority decision, so some jurors were not convinced...

 

[DarloRich]

Surely that depends on if the Jury were supplied with the full facts? Also it was a majority decision, so some jurors were not convinced...

The majority verdict doesn't matter - the jury did their job which was to hear the case and pronounce on the guilt, or otherwise, of the defendant.

The issue is the not guilty verdict. It seems people like jury trials when they offer a verdict they agree with. The police officer has been held accountable in court for his, alleged, criminal activities and acquitted.

 

[Johnuk123]

Had this policeman been found guilty of anything at all this thread would have been full of posters saying how we must trust the judicial system as it's tried and tested and one of the most respected in the world.

As it's not gone the way they want the judicial system is basically not fit for purpose.

Mind you the thread wouldn't actually exist if he'd been found guilty.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I remember when Mark Duggan was shot . . . . .

I mean how can an unarmed man who has his hands in the air present a real an imminent threat to life?

In Duggan case the police claimed he had shot first which was complete bull . . . . .

I'm sorry to say that you appear to be being selective with your choice of facts and hasty in deciding what to believe.
There was additionally evidence, from independant witnesses, some of whom were not supporters of the Met and some who were not white, and who had claimed that Duggan was armed.

It was when the evidence of these witnesses was found to be unreliable under cross-examination, that the doubts about Duggan's use of his weapon was clarified, and it was NOT found that he was unarmed as he stepped out of the taxi when it was stopped by the Police. On the contrary. His gun was deemed to have been tipped through the fence after alighting from the taxi.
There was conflicting evidence as to whether it was a Blackberry or a gun that was in his hand, but to say 'his hands were in the air' rather suggests he was shot while attepting to surrender as in some TV Western. That was not the evidence presented to the enquiry.

One hopes that there aren't any other trigger happy firearms officers out there and this doesn't happen again.

Please take a moment to reflect on why Duggan was carring a gun that day.

 

[Dave1987]

I'm sorry to say that you appear to be being selective with your choice of facts and hasty in deciding what to believe.
There was additionally evidence, from independant witnesses, some of whom were not supporters of the Met and some who were not white, and who had claimed that Duggan was armed.

It was when the evidence of these witnesses was found to be unreliable under cross-examination, that the doubts about Duggan's use of his weapon was clarified, and it was NOT found that he was unarmed as he stepped out of the taxi when it was stopped by the Police. On the contrary. His gun was deemed to have been tipped through the fence after alighting from the taxi.
There was conflicting evidence as to whether it was a Blackberry or a gun that was in his hand, but to say 'his hands were in the air' rather suggests he was shot while attepting to surrender as in some TV Western. That was not the evidence presented to the enquiry.

Please take a moment to reflect on why Duggan was carring a gun that day.

I believe the evidence from the postmortem suggested Duggans arms were raised above his head when shot as that is the only way the trajectory of the bullets fired through his body could be explained.

 

[TheKnightWho]

the policeman was tried (and cleared) by a jury at The Old Bailey. I cant see much more accountability than that!

The issue, i maintain, is the not guilty verdict. You are basically saying that trial by jury isn't up to the job.

You can't assume either they or the system are infallible though!

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I believe the evidence from the postmortem suggested Duggans arms were raised above his head when shot as that is the only way the trajectory of the bullets fired through his body could be explained.

Bullet hole through the upper arm, enters from outside of arm and exits on the inside, then same bullet re-enters body 13cms below armpit.

Question: "you say the arm must have been upright, because the line [through the arm] is parallel to the road?". Answer: "Yes"

That is NOT the same as "the arm must have been up?"

The images of the wounds to the body were displayed to the jury on large TV screens.

 

[meridian2]

You can't assume either they or the system are infallible though!

Why does one need to make assumptions if the jury returned a concrete verdict? As Rich said, how accountable do you want them to be?