Aggy

Makes literally no sense. You’ve decided he’s not guilty based on a few online articles. I’m suggesting two detailed investigations think there’s enough to require a criminal trial to get to the bottom of it and I’m therefore more than content with a jury deciding after seeing all the evidence in detail.

…in your opinion based on the very limited info in a couple of online articles.

What makes it an even more bizarre stance (one which makes me suspect he or she is probably on a bit of a wind up) is that only a month ago LYB was demanding the death penalty for someone who, in a role as a community protector, was convicted of murder for offences carried out while on shift. I am not drawing comparisons between the two individuals or the circumstances of the cases, but the point is that just because you work in a high pressure job which the public depends on doesn’t mean you are above the law. Imagine if nurses never got prosecuted because of the fear they might all quit the NHS as soon as a charge was brought against one of their colleagues. I suspect LYB will say the difference is one was undeniably guilty before hand and one undeniably isn’t - based on a quick skim of a few vague BBC articles and a few posts on a football forum. Why waste a jury’s time!

Not looked at that particular point, but only one PC in 35 years has been found guilty of unlawful killing. Charged with murder but cleared of that and found guilty of manslaughter. Charged pre-covid, convicted 2021. That was taser/excessive force rather than shooting.

There are over 6000 armed police in the UK. Reports of 100-300 max handing in their weapons. That’s between about 1 and 5 percent. Most (all?) of whom are now back. Army lined up and not needed. Interesting that the other 95-99 per cent of armed police in the country seem to feel less strongly about this than you do.

Given policemen have faced prosecution before and the police force still exists, I’d be significantly more concerned about police being above the law than your make-believe scaremongering.

If they convict they will do so because they think he is guilty. That is all that is needed.

Where I do agree with LYB is that if this goes to trial and is basically thrown out for a complete lack of evidence, then there is clearly a problem with the system. However, that problem would be with the investigations that have taken place already and/or the decision to prosecute, not with the idea that policemen should face a trial in the same way as anyone else. If he is found guilty, or even if he is found not guilty but it is clear why it needed to go in front of a jury to determine, then the system is doing what it should.

Waffle waffle waffle. In much shorter summary, I was correct - you think the police are above the law. As to your point about the facts already being know, I’ll probably take the view of the IOPC and the CPS, who have actually done a proper investigation into the circumstances of the incident and think there is sufficient reason for a criminal trial to take place, over some chap on the internet who has read half an article online.

You seem to think the ‘interests’ of armed police are more important than the actual law. What’s in my interest is knowing that if, following the proper investigations, a police officer is suspected of murder, the police officer in question faces a trial which will determine his or her guilt.

Out of interest, what public pressure leading to a prosecution is there supposed to have been in this instance? I haven’t really paid it much attention until today. (And genuine question not making a point.. ) Had it been in the news over the last year or so? Don’t think I’d seen anything.

Yes probably correct assuming he shot to kill or do grievous bodily harm - that would be intent and either be lawful or not I suppose. I suppose if he was intending to fire a warning shot but negligently managed to hit him that might come into play. As you say, shot to the head unlikely.

Seemingly (a quick google - probably should have done that first) there have been a number of cases where police have been tried for gross negligence manslaughter for use of excessive force - and one found guilty. So if this clearly was an option open to the CPS, but they decided to go for a murder charge, it would certainly suggest the CPS thinks (after lengthy investigations) there is a bit more to this. And all the more reason you would think that it should indeed go to trial and not be hushed up because the policeman might be stressed by the trial.

The stress point LYB raised was that the policeman and his family have the stress of a trial. That’s a different point.

I obviously can’t speak for him but the below responses of his seem to be fairly suggestive that he is indeed suggesting armed officers shouldn’t face criminal trials but professional sanctions only. Which is partly the reason I raised the gross negligent manslaughter point for doctors. This isn’t being tried as a gross negligent manslaughter case. Could an armed policeman potentially commit negligent manslaughter if they ‘panic’ and shoot to kill when no other properly trained armed policeman would have done likewise? I’m not sure but can’t really see any reason why not in theory. But that doesn’t seem to be what’s suggested here - where the CPS clearly think there’s enough evidence to bring a murder prosecution, which must mean the CPS think there’s more to this than him making a ‘snap decision in the heat of the moment which turned out to be wrong” - presumably some sort of alleged motive being the difference. “There's much more wrong with this. Police officers are doing their job as instructed by their commanding officers how to deal with the situation Normal civilians don't have any authority to carry weapons or shoot civilians under any circumstances whatsoever. A police officer is therefore not operating according to normal law, but according to the rules of engagement stipulated by the police. Those are the standards against which officers should be judged, and any sanction should be purely professional, not personal, unless it can be shown that their motives for shooting had nothing at all to do with the conducting of their professional duties. To then put them on trial as a private individual like they were only there off their own bat doing their own thing is a disgrace. “ ”Thevery presence of armed police means it's viewed as an elevated risk situation for both the public and the officers. It's therefore wrong to put the liability for mistakes all on the officer with a personal charge for murder in asituation where they were doing their job whichnecessarily requires snap judgements in a situation where they have incomplete information.”

The stress of trial argument is a bit weak isn’t it.. What about doctors/surgeons in emergency situations? Should they be immune to murder and gross negligence manslaughter claims (potential life imprisonment) because they work in a high pressured situation, ‘doctors’ as a collective protect the community, and going to trial would be stressful?

He was supposedly penned in by cars, so wouldn’t have been driving directly at an officer you wouldn’t have thought. Possibly at a car with an officer in it, but the officer shooting wasn’t in a car - so you’d then come back round to that tyre question. Agree though that there is not enough in the public domain to speculate. What is clear is that there were other officers there, who the IOPC and CPS must surely have spoken to. If the other officers all said they were close to firing themselves/ they agree there was a risk to life, you would imagine it would not have got this far. That’s why I’m a bit surprised by all the outrage. This isn’t a criminal prosecution being brought five minutes after it happened. It happened a year ago. There have been investigations. There have been other police officers who were present and who must have given statements. If the conclusions of those investigations is that there is enough evidence to warrant a court/jury making a decision, then that seems like the proper thing to be done. If he is not guilty, that will come out at trial. I have no problem with the policeman remaining anonymous.

I reckon it’s his positioning. He doesn’t seem to make very many big mistakes and a lot of the time at first glance you think he couldn’t have done much about it. Then when you look a bit closer his positioning is off - a yard the other way and he might have been able to do something about it. (Not seen the goals today so don’t know what, if anything, he could have done about those - when you let in six you’ve got bigger problems than just your keeper…)

I didn’t say I didn’t believe it. I just thought your little dig about someone’s intelligence because they didn’t fact check on YouTube was funny.

You’re right. I should take as entirely factual everything I see on YouTube.

Yeah I’ve read a lot of phd theses citing Wikipedia as well.

How annoyed would you have been if the Blackburn game had been changed to the Sunday for Sky….

A large yellow and green chequered flag signed by a number of the the 03/04 promotion winning side which my grandad gave me as a teenager.

I don’t disagree with that in fairness The bit where your argument falls down is where you’re applying different levels of guilt at random points throughout - “we can’t get you for this so we’ll make it easier and try again for something else”. Taking that trail of thought further though, if we had a system where the jury announced a percentage of how guilty they thought the accused was (eg; we’re 60 per cent sure you’re guilty so 3 years inside vs 100 per cent sure you’re guilty so death penalty)… where on that scale would you place the death penalty? How sure would the jury need to be before the death penalty could be imposed? 100 per cent? 99? 95?

I’m not aware of anywhere that does that. In America they decide guilty or not guilty, and only then is the jury able to say whether the death penalty is on the cards. You can’t change the level of innocence you need to prove halfway through a trial.