Man shot dead by police on Tube

[Paramonkey]

so could i kill a copper dead to stop him from commiting a serious crime IE i thought, as he had a weapon, and innocent people have been shot before i thought he might kill me?

First, you arent allowed a gun in a public place.

Second you are leaving yourself wide open to malice intent, since the information you have at the time can be called into question, as how do you know the bloke shot is innocent? I believe you are trying to draw parrells with the De Menezes incident. There is a precise difference as the officers concerned had direct infromation, on top of that, they also have a right to carrry a gun and a percieved role as protectors, the prosecution would eat you alive, the odds being you would go down for murder due to the malice intent.

[Paramonkey]

As usual, you'd like to have us see only those parts of the law that tend to agree with you.

No, you asked for only certain parts which agreed with my statement, remember you said: "Perhaps you could quote that part of the law where murder is condoned as long as "good intentions" are involved?". Now you only asked for one side of the argument so I delivered it, so don’t try and get cocky and check the facts next time.

Since there was no crime in progress, and there has been no evidence presented of a crime in planning, taking the suspect down and shooting him 8 or 10 or however many number of times is clearly not using "reasonable force". The shooters were in no way defending themselves, since there had been no display that they were ever in danger

However, if a defendant uses excessive force this indicates that he acted unreasonably in the circumstances. There will therefore be no valid defence, and the defendant will be liable for the crime."

Reg. v. Williams (1983) has held that self defence is a legitimate defence if the individual believes that self-defence is justified, even if the situation transpires otherwise.
Beckford v. The Queen [1988] It was held that if the if the information at the time was justifiable for the police officer to shoot an individual, but it later transpires to be incorrect the officer is not guilty.

They were given a single piece of information that there was a suicide bomber entering the tube, this turned out to be incorrect however their actions are covered by the two cases marked out above. Its those who supplied the information and who allowed the situation to climax which need our attention.

They had the Actus reus but not the mens rea, its therefore not a crime. But unfortunately people are too short sighted to see that. I also doubt the numbers of people in this debate who actually care about De Menezes, who just want a pop at the Police....

[Zeebadee]

The police can't use the self-defense claim when it was they themselves that precipitated the incident. That would be the same as a burglar killing a homeowner because he felt threatened, believing that the homeowner might use force to protect himself. You can't claim self-defense when you attack someone, and then kill him because he might try and defend himself.

[Paramonkey]

The police can't use the self-defense claim when it was they themselves that precipitated the incident.

The police were in their capacity to protect the public and property, which is their primary duty they are obliged to counter the threat.

Other people's lives are in danger. They have to act accordingly so the claim is not primarily self defence, but defence of others and prevention of a crime with self-defence becoming a secondary factor in the incident which develops after their primary action to protect the public. They did not precipitate the incident they merely responded.

[Samildanach]

So lets extend that argument a bit.

A train is heading towards a station that is crowded with people.
the police are running to the train with automatic weapons and they believe there is a terrorist on board. As the police jump on the train and the train takes off the lights go out. Are the police justified in shooting everyone on the train because they have intelligence that there is a terrorist on the train and they cannot locate the terrorist through any other means and they are approaching a crowded station?

[Paramonkey]

No. That would be murder as the kills would be unlawful as it’s not based on direct intelligence. The officers should seek identification methods, i.e. using their torches.

[ise]

Public Statement
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL: The Killing of Jean Charles de Menezes
6 September 2006

The next hearing of the inquest into the fatal shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes by officers of the Metropolitan Police Service on 22 July 2005 is scheduled for 7 September 2006 at Southwark Coroner’s Court, London. Her Majesty’s Coroner, John Sampson, will be likely to consider the future conduct of the inquest into Jean Charles de Menezes’ death.

Amnesty International understands that the Crown Prosecution Service of England and Wales (CPS) has reportedly written to the Coroner and invited him to adjourn the inquest proceedings. The organization is extremely concerned that the CPS is seeking to block the immediate resumption and completion of the inquest.

Amnesty International understands that the CPS will argue that the inquest should be postponed until the completion of the ongoing criminal proceedings against the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis for an offence under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 of failing to provide for the health, safety and welfare of Jean Charles de Menezes. As such, the ongoing criminal proceedings are not against Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, in his personal capacity, but will be a prosecution of the Office of Commissioner, as the deemed employer of the Metropolitan Police officers involved in the death of Jean Charles de Menezes.

Amnesty International has recently written to the Director of Public Prosecutions expressing concern about the CPS’s reported intention to seek the postponement of the inquest, as well as asking for a detailed explanation of its reasons for doing so.

The organization would oppose any such postponement on the grounds outlined below.

I wonder how long after Blair 1 (Tony, lap dog) is got rid of, will Blair 2 (Big Ian) last. My guess is that he will be part of the new brush sweeping clean.

[RickSp]

The fact that the Crown Prosecution Service wants to sweep things under the rug doesn't change the basic fact that Jean Charles de Menezes was shot 8 times in the head for the crime of being mistaken for an Arab. In a just world his death would be called murder.

[Nono]

This is a test for the rule of law.

[GHook93]

BBC NEWS | UK | Man shot dead by police on Tube



Man shot dead on Tube, from eye-witness reports it sounds like an execution....there is speculation that the guy was a suicide bomber and was attempting to detonate while the two officers had him on the floor.

I thought the police don't carry guns in England? When did this change?

[Matt W]

I thought the police don't carry guns in England? When did this change?

There have always been armed police units about. We're not that impractical that we'd have the military dealing with cases that require an armed response. :rolleyes:

[GHook93]

We're not that impractical that we'd have the military dealing with cases that require an armed response. :rolleyes:

What exactly do you mean by this? Are you trying to insult me? :confused: