Harry Roberts shot three (two) unarmed men because he didn’t want to do a stretch inside.

He said that himself.

I’m not going to argue the whys and nots but he should never be released until he is vertical.

hora – Member
Harry Roberts shot three (two) unarmed men because he didn’t want to do a stretch inside.

He said that himself.

I’m not going to argue the whys and nots but he should never be released until he is vertical.most people are vertical when they walk out of prison! 😆

Oops 😆

Personally I feel he should have got life without any chance of Parole – not just because the people he killed were coppers, but to protect society from someone who is clearly mental.

So an armed police officer makes a mistake,

Why armed?

Anyone could shove over an innocent newspaper seller and it could end in his death, for instance.

Is it OK coz he’s Plod; or should he be put against the wall with the bank robbers and shot?

Seriously?
So an armed police officer makes a mistake, in a very stressful situation and you would lock him up for life?

Most deaths of civilians where the police are involved does not include the use of firearms on either side. Most are somewhat unexplained deaths in custody or when under restraint. There are far more deaths of members of the public when in custody of the police than police officers killed in the pursuance of duties. Here for clarity I’m not talking about armed civilians being disarmed or contained – I’m talking about unarmed people losing their lives where they shouldn’t be at risk of death.

Where firearms are used, the training and the directions given should prevent such a mistake. It should be a controlled situation. We shouldn’t be shooting people carrying chair legs for instance… Besides, armed officers make very few mistakes historically.

IIRC there has not been one successful prosecution of a copper for death in custody.

I dont think it is comparable but that is shcocking

There is one on video where you can even see them beating [ restraining if you prefer] him whilst he says he cannot breathe. They then walk around him whilst he is dying.

If “full life” sentences were mandatory and it made people think twice about pulling a gun, or a knife, or whatever, on a copper, then it would be worth it.

They don’t make people think twice

Most deaths of civilians where the police are involved does not include the use of firearms on either side. Most are somewhat unexplained deaths in custody or when under restraint.

Correct figures here:

http://www.inquest.org.uk/statistics/deaths-in-police-custody
http://www.inquest.org.uk/statistics/bame-deaths-in-police-custody

There have been some truly shocking deaths in police custody, that have never resulted in prosecution. Not all coppers are bad but some are just thugs in uniform.

IIRC there has not been one successful prosecution of a copper for death in custody.

Is that due to charges not being brought or because the jury found in favour ?

I have a few friends who are police officers and I know a fairly senior officer too. None seem to take the abuse of their position by their fellow officers too well… All have said at differing times that they feel their positive impact and hard work become discredited as a result.

I’m not here on this thread to bash the police, but I do think they need to be whiter than white. This isn’t the case at the moment.

Is that due to charges not being brought or because the jury found in favour ?

Look at the membership of the IPCC. That may tell you something…

If “full life” sentences were mandatory and it made people think twice about pulling a gun, or a knife, or whatever, on a copper, then it would be worth it.

Do you really think someone would make that calculation? That it would be worth doing 48 years in prison but not whole-life? I find that unlikely.

@cheekyboy – mix of the two

Bear in mind these have been recorded as an unlawful killing, they happened entirely in the care of the police and no one gets prosecuted . Its hard to reconcile all of this Every time

http://www.inquest.org.uk/statistics/unlawful-killing-verdicts-and-prosecutions

I am not anti police or on a witch hunt here.
The overwhelming majority do a grand job very well to the benefit us all.
they also never get “done” when it goes , terribly, wrong

Most deaths of civilians where the police are involved

Unless you’re talking about the RMP then police are civilians as well.

Just a pet hate of mine, only military personnel are non-civilian.

Most deaths of civilians where the police are involved
Unless you’re talking about the RMP then police are civilians as well.
Just a pet hate of mine, only military personnel are non-civilian.

I think the meaning as used in this thread is likely to be clearly understood. Police are not normal members of the public. They have additional powers and protection enshrined in law.

But not military law. Police are not paramilitary (in this country) so are civilians in every sense of the word.

As I said, pet hate. Pedantic yes.

it’s pedantic, unnecessary to the thread and not even necessarily right:

Definition of civilian in English:
NOUN

1A person not in the armed services or the police force:
terrorists and soldiers have killed tens of thousands of civilians
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/civilian

I think that it is more of a cruel punishment to kick him out of his free board and lodgings where he has spent the vast majority of his life with no experience of working for a living into the care in the community.

Konabunny, I can honestly say that definition is a first for me and not correct. The internationally accepted legal definition of a civilian is laid out in Article 50 of Protocol 1 of the Geneva Convention as summarised here:

https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter1_rule5

that is in a war situation and they have defined who the is not in the armed forces.

In general its pretty hard /daft to disagree with the dictionary on the meanings of words.

FWIW the police advertise for two types of jobs

police jobs and civilian police jobs [admin for example]

The internationally accepted legal definition…

this is the problem with misplaced pedantry. you’re think you’re being pedantic (disagreeing but right) but the definition that you seek to apply universally is one that applies in a defined context (disagreeing and wrong). if you read what you yourself wrote, you’ll see you are yourself limiting the applicability of that definition: it’s a legal definition. (meaning – a definition for legal purposes, not a legally-mandated universal definition).

If it’s a bugbear of yours that everyone else is using it wrong, maybe it’s not everyone else that’s wrong!

Here’s another definition of it…

n.
1. A person following the pursuits of civil life, especially one who is not an active member of the military, the police, or a belligerent group.

So not even my children are civilians.

😆
Genuine laugh out loud moment
Thanks

Pleasure…

Whatever, I don’t know when that crept in but as I said, it’s new to me.