Police officer

[carmanmemoranda]

Investigation, absolutely.

Prosecution in this instance, absolutely disgraceful.

Says who?

Let's keep the investigations fully open and challengeable

Nothing worse than a private investigation for increasing the allegations of conspiracy theories

 

[carmanmemoranda]

And the fact that some of this information was withheld from the Jury, scandalous beyond belief.

They were investigating and deciding on this case, only.

 

[motorbiking]

No problem with any policeman shooting any deserving criminal

I have a problem with a policeman shooting anyone.

That doesn't make it unlawful and a giant leap away from murder.

When you are in front of a 2 1/2 tonne vehicle where the driver is failing to stop and trying to break through with you in its path. There is a clear self defence and reasonable force argument.

 

[Trazor]

They were investigating and deciding on this case, only.

Do you not understand, the policeman's knowledge of this criminals previous behaviour, was wholly instrumental in his actions.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

I have a problem with a policeman shooting anyone.

I don't. Under strict rules and with reasons, decided by the Law, in advance of the shooting

That doesn't make it unlawful and a giant leap away from murder.

Hence the court case

When you are in front of a 2 1/2 tonne vehicle where the driver is failing to stop and trying to break through with you in its path. There is a clear self defence and reasonable force argument.

Different argument. If a policeman is trying to keep order, are they allowed to use force to control the situation, or turn around and run away.

The difference is whether it is under legally allowed certain conditions, or not. A policeman shooting anybody (criminal or not) without sound reason and legal allowance is when it's not accountable.

 

[blup]

According to the Gail This guy was wanted for all kinds of serious offences just days before, if so a hard stop seems the least sensible means of apprehension unless taking him out was the objective.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Do you not understand, the policeman's knowledge of this criminals previous behaviour, was wholly instrumental in his actions.

It was the jury deciding on this case, only. With no other knowledge of other cases. So was the policeman acting correctly, or just shooting somebody he knew was a criminal but wasn't necessarily a threat at that time.

The argument would then become, why wasnt the criminal taken off the streets before, under safer conditions.

 

[Trazor]

Says who?

Let's keep the investigations fully open and challengeable

Nothing worse than a private investigation for increasing the allegations of conspiracy theories

Again you miss the point.

An open and transparent investigation, yes definitely.
And after that it should have been obvious, no prosecution was necessary.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Again you miss the point.

An open and transparent investigation, yes definitely.
And after that it should have been obvious, no prosecution was necessary.

And who makes that open investigation, where independant people judge the outcome ?

That is the point. Being accountable and proven.

 

[ajohn]

Do you not understand, the policeman's knowledge of this criminals previous behaviour, was wholly instrumental in his actions.

It actually seems he had no idea who he was shooting. The car was stopped as it was associated with a shooting, Nothing to do with who was driving.

It seems this was a fact mentioned in the hearing.

 

[motorbiking]

I don't. Under strict rules and with reasons, decided by the Law, in advance of the shooting

Hence the court case

Different argument. If a policeman is trying to keep order, are they allowed to use force to control the situation, or turn around and run away.

The difference is whether it is under legally allowed certain conditions, or not. A policeman shooting anybody (criminal or not) without sound reason and legal allowance is when it's not accountable.

So you want Police officers to have the power to be judge, Jury and executioner. I think you've been reading too many comics.

 

[ajohn]

Another aspect - who instigated the policemen's charge and hearing? Not something I have looked into but can guess. Some might not like this but the law works in the way it does. It could also influence the CPS view for rather obvious reasons,

LOL Just how many knots would people like to tie in.

 

[Stivino]

the policeman's knowledge of this criminals previous behaviour, was wholly instrumental in his actions.

They didn't know who was in the car. They were stopping the car, not the driver.

 

[motorbiking]

It actually seems he had no idea who he was shooting. The car was stopped as it was associated with a shooting, Nothing to do with who was driving.

It seems this was a fact mentioned in the hearing.

the driver of a vehicle that had previously been involved in a shooting.

reasonable suspicion that the driver would be armed and dangerous - yes
was the driver failing to stop - yes
had he been warmed that armed police were there - yes
was there a risk that someone would be mown down - yes

 

[aveatry]

Why was the copper named