Reply to topic  [ 2 posts ] 
Police who shoot to kill may get greater legal protection 
Author Message
Legend

Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:30 pm
Posts: 45931
Location: Belfast
Reply with quote
Police who shoot to kill may get greater legal protection under security review | UK news | The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015 ... ity-review

Yeah, that's what the Met. needs, greater legal protection and quickened inquiries when it's shooting to kill. Successive Tory governments weren't too bothered when there was a full-on guerilla campaign in Ulster and there were actually necessary shoot to kill incidents involving the police and army, but hey. Everything should be taken in the context of the situation, for which current laws should be more than adequate. It should be weighed up on evidence, not the political mood and what suits politicians egos and agendas. That's not justice.

_________________
Plain English advice on everything money, purchase and service related:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/


Sun Dec 20, 2015 12:44 pm
Profile
Legend

Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:30 pm
Posts: 45931
Location: Belfast
Reply with quote
Shoot-to-kill: firearms officers 'should not have right to silence' | UK news | The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015 ... to-silence

Quote:
In law, police have no special protection if they shoot a suspect dead in the course of their duties. They do so lawfully if they hold an honest belief that a suspect threatens the life of themselves and others. In practice, prosecutors have been wary of bringing charges and juries have been reluctant to pass guilty verdicts. No police officer has ever been convicted of breaking the law by shooting a suspect dead.

This year a former Met police firearms officer, Anthony Long, was cleared of murdering a suspect, 10 years after the shooting. Azelle Rodney was shot on sight by Long – including four bullets to the head – in 2005 in north London. Long argued self-defence, which the jury accepted, after he told them he feared the suspect was reaching for a gun.

By law police shootings must be investigated by the IPCC. Officers delay investigations by refusing to answer oral questions in interview, the IPCC has said.

Firearms officers in the Met are a powerful and close-knit group. They are volunteers and have expressed their anger in the past by threatening to hand in their weapons. Such a prospect catches the attention of their bosses and politicians, especially amid heightened fears of a terrorist gun attack in the UK.

In a candid 2014 Guardian interview, commander Neil Basu, then a Met firearms boss, explained the feelings of armed officers. He said: “No amount of fantastic Churchillian leadership from me is going to make an officer want to contribute to an inquiry where they are being made a suspect. They will be legally advised to make no comment. Why wouldn’t they, knowing that the slightest mistake they make … and they are potentially facing a murder charge for doing their job?”


10 years to clear a suspect. A powerful and close-knit group, legally advised not to answer questions. Nobody has even been convicted after decades of dodgy shootings. Yeah, they really need legal protection, don't they?

_________________
Plain English advice on everything money, purchase and service related:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/


Sun Dec 20, 2015 6:31 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 2 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software.