... I think the point of the original post was about how the Home Secretary shouldn't be commenting on a live criminal prosecution as it is likely to prejudice the case and as a minimum make it more difficult for the case to proceed. The discussion above is already indication of how sensitive an issue this is going to be without the Home Secretary wading in. In particular her second tweet in the thread is problematic, and announcing a review before the trial is just plain wrong
It’s just meaningless noise from Suella, she can’t change the criminal justice system, the burden of proof, or introduce waivers for armed officers (although they seemed to manage to introduce back-dated ones in the north of Ireland) and everyone in law enforcement knows she can’t - more so as they seem to be in the last phase of their rule. Headlines for the mail and telegraph readers.
Quite right to call out the Home Secretary for jumping into an ongoing case - knee jerk reactions rarely produce good results.
Whether (s)he's convicted or not, impartial justice needs to be done. Something very unusual has happened for this to be a murder charge. No one has any knowledge of the circumstances at this time.
We expect armed officers to keep us safe by making split second judgements, and if we as a society want them to carry on doing that, we have to find an appropriate way of dealing with a situation when they make a genuine but fatal error.
If we can't find a way to do that, we have to be prepared for a Police officer to be unable to stop someone killing us, or our family or friends because they don’t want that responsibility.
The chances of that are incredibly small, but it is the ultimate whataboutery test of what we want to happen.
murder requires intent & there is, I believe, a case to be made for the lawful killing of someone if they present an imminent & serious threat to the officer or their colleagues or the general public
This unfortunately is the get out of jail free card. It is very easy to claim they believed so and so was about to do such and such and they don't need to be able to prove or show that.
.
In a situation for example of someone breaking into your house late and night and you stab them to death with a big butchers knife, you are probably and more likely going to jail. And the 'I believed' defence is going to be no defence at all.
We expect armed officers to keep us safe by making split second judgements,
Absolutely. But define split second in this case. He was shot through a windscreen. How(Speaking rhetorically) are you expected to see exactly what is going on inside a car through the windscreen. The glass itself is reflective, so you arent getting a clear picture.
I think this officer brought the gun to bear, and accidentally popped off a round. As there was no warning as you would expect and the law would demand.
So its one of two scenarios. Accidentally, or deliberate. He brought his gun up and I would hope accidentally pulled the trigger, as I don't want to believe the armed response team as akin to the death squads of South American dictatorships.
This unfortunately is the get out of jail free card. It is very easy to claim they believed so and so was about to do such and such and they don’t need to be able to prove or show that.
.
In a situation for example of someone breaking into your house late and night and you stab them to death with a big butchers knife, you are probably and more likely going to jail. And the ‘I believed’ defence is going to be no defence at all.
that’s not how the law works for either police officers or people in their own homes using force to defend themselves or others. There is a burden of proof, to show it was reasonable in the circumstances - that burden is lower than that required for the prosecution (who must show their facts beyond reasonable doubt). It will be for a jury to decide having heard all the evidence.
In a situation for example of someone breaking into your house late and night and you stab them to death with a big butchers knife, you are probably and more likely going to jail.
Absolutely wrong - quite a notorious case a few years back where a pensioner stabbed a burglar and wasn’t charged. Tony Martin was only charged and convicted because the burglars were running away when he killed one.
You have the right to defend yourself if you, at that time, had reasonable belief that you were in imminent danger, and you use a level of force that you, at that moment, believed was reasonable, even if it was fatal. It's the self defence defence.
Anyway, the people who get the best details of the actual facts of the case to make a judgement are the jury, and those in court throughout the trial. All the rest of us are second guessing and wasting time
Well that’s a relief….. if they believe that police officers should be permitted to kill people with impunity then they are the last people that should be allowed to carry guns.
I hope that the “dozens” involved are never allowed access to firearms again.
Nice – you’ve judged some people you know nothing about with no evidence to back up your POV on their reaction to an incident you know the square root of SFA about. Quality.
Armed police officers literally have the ability to take a life lawfully. Throwing a fit of the vapours because there is sufficient evidence for a murder charge and acting in a precipitative manner is not something that engenders confidence in their "split second" decision making abilities. Due process still has to be undertaken and at that point a decision on whether to continue as armed response would have been more reasonable.
Carte blanche is not offered to armed officers though this is what those that have acted hastily seem to believe they should have. Some officers don't realise that they can be wrong on some issues and how they resolve their interactions with the rest of us citizens. Some humility and introspection would be a good idea.
Then let us hope it actually goes to court where a jury can decide.
To be fair there are apparently over 6 thousand firearms authorized officers in England and Wales, it is claimed that about a 100 have handed in their weapons, so they are only a small minority.
And imo they have done the right thing if they have issues with accountability and the heavy responsibility which comes with the authority to use deadly weapons.
I think we just need to wait to see the exact circumstances..
The vehicle was allegedly involved in a firearms offence, so was presumably stopped and the occupant(s) refused to get out...you'd struggle to headshot someone in a moving vehicle with only one round, and it wouldn't be a crazy leap to assume the occupant or occupants are armed and dangerous.
EDIT,
From the other side of the coin, for a murder charge...rather than manslaughter or something 'else', it does suggest there is strong evidence of some big wrong doing, refusal to follow protocol etc...
Time will tell I guess, presumably all armed oficers have body cams and there will be radio evidence etc.
Not just appealing to right wing nutjobs in the UK, now she's gone international!
Post-Brexit she must have really have had to think to come up with a way to make this country even more of an international pariah.
She's managed it well though
As there was no warning as you would expect and the law would demand.
"Unless to do so would further endanger life".
There are even exceptions to your 'rule'. Please stop with your Google Fu.
And you do not know if another officer had already identified themselves or had issued verbal commands.
I'm sure it will all come out in time. But as so many are fixed in their opinion the whataboutery will no doubt be staggering as is the STW way.
to come up with a way to make this country even more of an international pariah.
Really? I would have thought that Braverman's claims that what constitutes a refugee should be redefined will chime extremely well with many current European governments.
I actually expect her to get quite a bit of international support for her stance. I can see countries such as Poland, Hungary, and Italy, cheering her on.
She's expanding her remit then?
Previously, with her proposal to pull out of the ECHR, we were only aligning ourselves with Russia and Belarus, so its nice to see we're now including other nutjob regimes
They truly are the party of aspiration
Whilst I hate this woman with every bone in my body, I console myself with the fact she’ll soon be out of government and spouting her hate on GB news to an audience of about 50 irrelevant old coffin dodgers..
Its worth reminding ourselves, because its easy with her deluge of increasingly extreme nonsense to forget, that by her own proposed rules her parents would have been classed as economic migrants and sent to Rwanda after 2 years sat on a barge waiting for their claims to be processed.
It always amazes me that journalists don't remind her of this at every possible opportunity
her own proposed rules her parents would have been classed as economic migrants and sent to Rwanda
There are no plans to send economic migrants to Rwanda. Braverman is attempting to send refugees who successfully qualify as asylum seekers to Rwanda.
The right-wing press likes to maintain that that asylum seekers are mostly economic migrants but only to undermine their status and increase public hostility towards them.
But Cruella's parents were economic migrants, not refugees. So whichever way she wants to slice it, by her own rules, they'd have been booted out of the country long before she arrived
They're just having a 'debate' on Five Live about it. Lots of people phoning in and starting their statements with "I'm not a racist, but....."
You can guess the rest
These people are exactly who this is designed to appeal to and unfortunately there are a depressingly large amount of them
Yep. She is the total epitome of hypocrisy. And a nasty self serving bitch too.
But Cruella’s parents were economic migrants, not refugees. So whichever way she wants to slice it, by her own rules, they’d have been booted out of the country long before she arrived
I haven't studied Cruella's geneology but I think her argument would be that her parents arrived via a legal route with some form of visa/permission, not bypassing border controls. She believes, like all good tories, that her fortune in life comes because she deserves it and worked hard / parents worked hard for it and those less fortunate obviously just lack either aspiration or effort.
I am not sure her ethnic origin comes in to this, but she is not a very nice person. I just wish she would crawl back under the rock she imerged from.
I can't remember which Labour MP made the point last week that she's essentially just a useful idiot.
Her position in the Tory party is basically as a mouthpiece for a lot of rich, angry, reactionary old white men, who need a voice for their nasty racist opinions, but don't want to say it themselves so they use her ethnic origin to hide behind.
She's just not bright enough to realise this and seems to genuinely enjoy the nastiness.
Anyway, this is all just dog-whistling to the rich, angry, reactionary old white men who make up the membership of the Tory Party, ready for the inevitable leadership contest when Rishi buggers off to California, having lost the election
I hope Cruella wins the next leadership contest.
The Tories will be finished.
Just out of interest I've had a look at the present odds for the post-Rishi leadership
None of them look anything less than laughable. They are:
Kemi Badenoch 3/1
Penny Mordaunt 4/1
James Cleverly 6/1
Gillian Keegan 8/1
Suella Braverman 9/1
I've just stuck a fiver on Cruella. I reckon she's a shoe-in
Nah, It will be Penny 'sword in the arsecrack' Mordaunt surely
EDIT Can't belive Kemi Badenoch is the favourite - the party really is a nutter's paradise now isn't it
I haven’t studied Cruella’s geneology but I think her argument would be that her parents arrived via a legal route with some form of visa/permission, not bypassing border controls.
Braverman's parents were British subjects and didn't require a visa. She's an awful person individually but it's striking how many people are quick to challenge her parents' right to come to the UK because of her appearance.
Its nothing to do with her appearance - which the best description I've heard is 'an irradiated gerbil' - its that a second generation immigrant is so rabidly and viciously anti-immigrant
Like Sunak and Prit Patel, she is the child of immigrant parents who seems to be making it their lives work to be as hostile as possible to immigrants and create the most toxic environment for them possible
The hypocrisy is absolutely off the chart. Pull that ladder up behind yourself. Very Tory.
I can’t remember which Labour MP made the point last week that she’s essentially just a useful idiot.
Whoever it is was wrong.
A useful idiot is someone who is just being used without understanding the objectives.
I would argue she does and is a true believer in the cause.
I don't doubt she's a true believer, but the point they were making is that she's voicing opinions that a large group of angry, old privileged white men might think twice about voicing in public, certainly to such a degree.
So they mustn't be able to believe their luck that they've got a gaggle of second generation immigrants who are so happily prepared to whip up a toxic hared of immigrants
Her hypocrisy is multi-faceted. Seems she lived in France for two years under ERASMUS. I suspect she is both a passionate believer and a vacuous mouthpiece for the lurking cause. An awful, uncaring, empathy-devoid person. Prime schutzstaffel candidate.
Braverman’s parents were British subjects and didn’t require a visa.
May have been different in the 60s but being a British subject doesn’t provide a right to reside or work in the UK. Indeed the Home office say British Subject was a bit meaningless;
All citizens of Commonwealth countries were collectively referred to as ‘British subjects’ until January 1983. However, this was not an official status for most of them.
Face like a melted pound shop candle
Also tory changes to the immigration made it much harder for folk like Bravermans parents to enter britain. remember Howard as home secretary? He closed the route to UK citizenship that his own parents used. Nowt new in this.
Braverman is a bad combination of dimness, nastyness, ambition and a total lack of self awareness.
She’s almost a fictional baddie,
Yes, It's performative, but the question I guess is who she's really performing at. Any survey you care to look at shows that most folks think there should be legal immigration options, most folks recognise that we need immigrants, and most folks are sensitive and open to refugees seeking asylum. It's as if our entire policy in this area is aimed a teeny sub-set of folks who already think that the Tories are too soft anyway.
Sweet Jesus!!! Its even worse than was trailed
You know that statement Gary Lineker made about 'language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s'?
That. She's really has gone full Nazi! 😳
Braverman adds that multiculturalism has failed and that “the nation state must be protected.”
Christ on a fascist bike!
She just said that all asylum seekers are inherently criminal 😳
multiculturalism has failed and that “the nation state must be protected.”
Not often I look at the news and am shocked and saddened. What the **** have we sunk to.
While I'm not surprised at this, I am appalled. That there are people for whom this opinion matches their views also appalls me.
Says the daughter of Asian immigrants who has risen (somehow) to one of the great offices of state.
Nah, It will be Penny ‘sword in the arsecrack’ Mordaunt surely
Why the hell would she want it BEFORE the election?
Christ on a fascist bike!
Because Suella Braverman has said that multiculturalism has failed?
The claim that multiculturalism has failed has been a right-wing theme for decades, ever since the UK became a multicultural society in fact.
Twelve years ago the then UK Prime Minister (who was in coalition with the Liberal Democrats btw) said the same thing:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-12371994
I see the BBC have almost entirely eradicated the speech coverage from their website overnight. The ministry of truth work very hard indeed.
