Armed police

I’d have thought given it was a police shooting that the charge he was being tried for would be that of manslaughter, as in unlawful killing.

unlawful act manslaughter requires there to be no intent to kill or cause gbh.  It’s not credible that a police officer aims a loaded weapon and pulls the trigger and had no intent to harm the target.  If the officer acted without a genuine believe that he or others were under immediate threat then murder was the correct charge.  It is probably right that it was left to a jury to decide.

I have no idea, maybe they had been told that a vehicle they were interested in was heading that way, a white Transot is fairly common. It was slightly alarming. It’s the only time I’ve ever had a gun pointed in my general direction. It would have been better had they been identifyable as police without relying on me spotting the van or speaking to them once I’d stopped.

Their van was tucked into this gateway https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.9200864,-0.4755723,3a,75y,260.77h,89.08t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1ssi1BzBTt4OEEM875idWtiQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D0.9153548737870949%26panoid%3Dsi1BzBTt4OEEM875idWtiQ%26yaw%3D260.77472095004924!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTAyOS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D I don’t recall seeing it until the last minute so maybe the gate was open or something and it was parked further in, it was a marked van so obvious once I’d seen it although no lights on.

.

Anyway, we’re drifting a little off topic, I mentioned it as someone had said that the typlical STW demographic probably won’t ever be shot by a British policeman, this is entirely correct, but sometimes weird things happend when you really don’t expect them.

although if Andrewh’s account is entirely accurate nobody seems to have risk assessed standing in the carriageway in dark clothes at night. I don’t know exactly what the rules are but I am surprised that a weapon was raised and pointed at the driver of a vehicle who had made no threat.

I agree. It seems a ridiculous way of operating.

Although they can’t exactly go around with their blue lights on and in high vis, you are not going to catch many poachers like that.

Besides, I didn’t even think deer poaching was a thing? I thought we had large over populations and they needed regular culling?

…although if Andrewh’s account is entirely accurate nobody seems to have risk assessed standing in the carriageway in dark clothes at night

Depends. If the stop was immediately after the turn when vehicle speeds are naturally low then it might be deemed acceptable. In a gunfight I’d guess that you really don’t want to be wearing hi-viz 🙂

Although they can’t exactly go around with their blue lights on and in high vis, you are not going to catch many poachers like that

That’s probably the safest tactic. Weapons and their haul in the back of a 4WD where the weapons are less accessible and long weapons are less easy to manoeuvre

Dogs with blood on their muzzles (deer DNA), all in one small space

Seems pretty logical to me

Deer poaching is a 50,000 deer per year thing… https://bds.org.uk/information-advice/issues-with-deer/poaching-and-wildlife-crime/

Are deer poachers not doing the public a favour though in helping to reduce the over population of deer in this country at no cost to the public or landowner>

https://www.countryfile.com/wildlife/mammals/deer-culling-in-britain

Could it be that if the charge of unlawful killing was put to a jury, with evidence of the driver being unarmed, and the car moving in reverse at the time of the shooting

Ok, so he reverses to make some space and then where do you think he is going next? Bearing in mind the cop who shot him was on standing in front?

Looking at V8ninety’s post I think my comments aged fairly well. The jury decided he was using the car as a weapon and unfortunately for him he wasnt able to explain himself later by claiming the sun blinded him or something since one of the less well protected people he was pointing the vehicle towards decided to respond and had a rifle rather than rude words.

Overall whilst the evidence seems to have been seriously in the cops favour given how fast the jury came back I cant blame the CPS for deciding to prosecute to try to avoid (although seemingly failing for you) the impression of the “establishment” covering up. Not sure the answer though.

I cant blame the CPS for deciding to prosecute to try to avoid (although seemingly failing for you) the impression of the “establishment” covering up

The evidence comes before the public interest…

* “Crown Prosecutors must be satisfied that there is enough evidence to provide a “realistic prospect of conviction” against each defendant on each charge.” The fact that the jury came to a verdict so quickly tells a story

* “If the case does pass the evidential stage, Crown Prosecutors must then decide whether a prosecution is needed in the public interest.”

Ask Martyn Blake and his family how they feel about that, rather than the “establishment”

* https://www.cps.gov.uk/principles-we-follow

It isn’t necessary for a cop to be prosecuted to ensure the public interest. In Scotland a police shooting will result in a Fatal Accident Enquiry. An example I remember locally –

In this case the deceased escaped from prison after his girlfriend ended their relationship and turned up at her door with a shotgun.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12743672.man-shot-by-police-after-siege-was-drinking-heavily/

ircFree Member
Are deer poachers not doing the public a favour though in helping to reduce the over population of deer in this country at no cost to the public or landowner>

Legitimate stalkers, contract cullers and those employed by Forestry bodies etc are licensed by the police to possess and use firearms specifically suitable in terms of calibre to kill deer effectively and humanely.  Most estates, landowners and forestry bodies will also insist that the stalker, contractor etc will have deer management certification which requires training in deer identification, lawful seasons, safe use of firearms and appropriate ammunition, and game meat and larder hygiene elements. They will also all without exception have public liability insurance

Poaching is lucrative and very often indiscriminate. It isn’t just done by firearms either, with many instances particularly in rural counties such as Lincs, N Yorks of 4x4s tearing up crops and pasture land chasing deer (and hare) with dogs.  The sort of people that do this are also strongly associated with the theft of farm machinery, plant and diesel.

Those folk aside, the armed poachers take on a different hue. They will use smaller calibre firearms, leading to badly wounded but still running deer, and apart from anything else are on people’s land, armed and intent on committing crime. Their very presence and possession of a firearm (licensed or not) in these circumstances is an imprisonable offence.

As a former police officer, firearms licensing officer and with close ties to countryside managers I can assure you there is absolutely no way they could be described as doing anyone a favour.

Ok, so he reverses to make some space and then where do you think he is going next? Bearing in mind the cop who shot him was on standing in front?

It was, then, a precautionary shooting to stop him changing gear?

As a former police officer, firearms licensing officer and with close ties to countryside managers I can assure you there is absolutely no way they could be described as doing anyone a favour.

Lets not let expert knowledge and experience get in the way of a mistaken opinion

I’m all for police to be armed as long as there are proper and frequent background checks and training.

Also fully support police shooting civilians who are armed/attacking/in the process of killing others.

I have said this before and will say it again.  We need a “no fault” investigation for police shootings.  If officers are afraid of individual prosecutions then they will naturally slant the evidence and given they only need to have a reasonable belief that lives are at risk prosecutions are almost impossible.  I have seen this happen with medical mishaps

It appears from where I sit ( never having fired a gun!) that on occasion cops particularly in the met are over-hyped up and make poor decisions.  A proper no fault investigation with the true evidence given will help establish why this happens.  Also are there multiple failures?  Selection?  briefing?  etc etc

Do we want to see less cops shooting folk or do we want to punish individual cops for what may well be systemic issues?  We cannot have both IMO

A separate legal stream for the prosecution or investigation of police officers invites a perception of bias. There doesn’t appear to be a shortage of officers prepared to take on these sorts of duties so this suggests to me that the officers involved are ok with that and given the number of operations conducted by armed officers Vs the number of actual shootings I see no reason to put armed officers under different scrutiny. They appear to be doing their jobs very effectively.

.There doesn’t appear to be a shortage of officers prepared to take on these sorts of duties

You should let the National Police Chiefs Council and the director general of the NCA that the shortage of firearms officers they perceive doesn’t actually exist. They are doing their jobs effectively but there is a shortage (as with most specialist roles in LE).

i stand corrected. my apologies and thank you.

A separate legal stream for the prosecution or investigation of police officers invites a perception of bias.

I don’t think TJ is suggesting that, probably a more refined version of the IOPC. I wouldn’t ask any of those in blue here their take on them, but my good buddy in blues’ take was ‘they couldn’t find their arse in their own underpants’ so it’s fair to say they may not be as effective as others would argue.

TJ’s point is valid, the problem is policing is for some reason very political, and that will always interfere and impact the integrity of any investigation.

Purely anecdotal but as I’ve said way earlier in this thread, having some some work with police firearms of a few different types, they’re switched on bods and not the bloodthirsty murderers many try to paint them as.

Someone made reference to armed forces shooting standards earlier in the thread as a comparison, don’t want to burst yer bubble but they ain’t that high.

The police standards are way higher and far more dynamic for good reason.

A battle-shot is very different to the sort of close quarter work AFO’s are expected to manage along with all the other nuances of policing.

We need a “no fault” investigation for police shootings.

I understand where you are coming from, but I think this is unrealistic for the police.  Medical staff are trying to avoid fatal incidents. However some police  could face real temptation to take the law into their own hands when the opportunity arose, if there was not the prospect of a challenging investigation with the potential of criminal sanctions.

I should say I am generally supportive of how the UK police have used firearms, but we need to recognise they are in a different situation to medical staff.

The point is not to threaten individual officers with criminal sanction unless its deliberate action.  Given that the officer only needs a belief that lives were in danger its incredibly hard to get prosecutions.  Far better to actually find out what went wrong to allow adjustments to recruitment / tactics etc etc to prevent further shootings.

I am no suggesting a blanket immunity – just that there should be a presumption of no prosecution thus officers will be more likely to give truthful evidence with prosecution only if there is a totally egregious breach of the rules.

Normally in these sorts of incidents there is not one single failure point.  there are many.  Recruitment of the wrong sort of officers?  Failure of briefings?  failure of tactics, confusion at the site etc etc.  Why should the individual officer be the only one in the dock?

Other professions use this sort of investigation IIRC – airlines, shipping?

I don’t think it’ll ever work though TJ, the ability for political influence to be brought to bear is too great.

As is the will of leaders to allow it to happen to protect their own arse.

I also think people have been losing a sense of proportion about this and Armed Officers in general.

There were 18,395 firearms operations in the year ending 31 March 2023.

Of the 18,395 firearms operations, 92% (16,971) involved an armed response vehicle (ARV).

There were 10 incidents in which police firearms were intentionally discharged (fired) at persons in the year ending 31 March 2023.

Of those 10 incidents there were 3 fatalities. Kaba was one of those 3 fatalities.

I see your position TJ but the point is that any member of the public faces the same scrutiny, and police have no higher power other than wearing a uniform. My dad served 30 years in a wide variety of roles. I think he would have been comfortable with the current situation. To wear that uniform in the first place is admirable, to take on firearms responsibility much more so.

I think if the police have guns, and use them, then they should be available for scrutiny, and if found wrong then prosecuted. I certainly dont like the notion of armed police holding that call to ransom, by threatening to ‘lay down their guns’ if an officer is subject to prosecution.

In the US, plenty of officers have ended up in prison for wantonly shooting unarmed ‘criminals'(in commas as alleged criminals)

Given that the officer only needs a belief that lives were in danger its incredibly hard to get prosecutions

It isn’t that simple. Every police officer has a body-worn video (BWV). Potentially there are aircraft above (piloted and not-piloted). Local CCTV, video doorbells, etc, etc

BWV is recommended by HMI and the College of Policing and not using it when exercising any police power must be explained

It isn’t enough to believe; your actions will be recorded and studied from multiple angles

I think if the police have guns, and use them, then they should be available for scrutiny, and if found wrong then prosecuted.

Standards are high for a reason. If someone is wrong then they should be properly investigated; I doubt that many would have a problem with that

I certainly dont like the notion of armed police holding that call to ransom, by threatening to ‘lay down their guns’ if an officer is subject to prosecution.

I don’t think that’s the case. It’s taken two years for Martyn Blake to be tried with a “Not Guilty” verdict within three hours; that’s quick when juries have deliberated for nearer three weeks

During those two years he and his family will have been through mental hell with a criminal bounty allegedly on his head. Why would you want to be pilloried like that for doing your job?

It isn’t necessary for a cop to be prosecuted to ensure the public interest. In Scotland a police shooting will result in a Fatal Accident Enquiry

I think that’s analogous to an inquest by HM Coroner.

If the case is presented without criminal actions then the Coroner will run proceedings.

This shooting would be an inquest that must have a jury and HM Coroners can give “Narrative Conclusions”

The Coroner can give a verdict of “unlawful killing” on the lower threshold of “balance of probabilities” and will notify the DPP, who works to the higher criminal threshold of “beyond reasonable doubt”.

If the verdict is unlawful killing and criminal prosecution follows then the inquest will be concluded by the Crown Court because it’s a higher court.

Deer poachers around here tend to gut the deer, cut off what joints they want and leave the rest behind, not nice to find it on the trail and I should imagine not great for all the dog walkers…………………

Why would you want to be pilloried like that for doing your job?

You think that being prosecuted under the law is the same as some criminal group putting a bounty on an officers head ? **** knows how you came to that conclusion.

The evidence comes before the public interest…

* “Crown Prosecutors must be satisfied that there is enough evidence to provide a “realistic prospect of conviction” against each defendant on each charge.” The fact that the jury came to a verdict so quickly tells a story

* “If the case does pass the evidential stage, Crown Prosecutors must then decide whether a prosecution is needed in the public interest.”

I think its wrong to say that the CPS got it wrong with the evidential test, and realistic prospect of convicition before the trial:

– they don’t know for sure what the crown witnesses will say or how they will come across in the witness box
– they have no real idea what any defence witnesses will say
– if sufficiency of evidence really was the problem the Judge would have prevented the decision going to the jury

Three hours is fairly quick for a lengthy murder trial to reach its conclusion but by no means exceptional.  Even if it had taken them only 30 minutes, it would not have been a certain sign that the trial was flawed.  Similarly just because a jury takes multiple days to reach its conclusion doesn’t actually mean that the decision was a close call.

The point is not to threaten individual officers with criminal sanction unless its deliberate action.

The mens rea required for murder requires the action to have been deliberate, its quite difficult to imaging how an armed officer shoots someone they were trying to detain unintentionally.  The question for the jury is whether this fell into the realm of reasonable force / self defence.

Given that the officer only needs a belief that lives were in danger its incredibly hard to get prosecutions.

Actually, they need a belief that lives were in immediate danger and there was no reasonable alternative.

Far better to actually find out what went wrong to allow adjustments to recruitment / tactics etc etc to prevent further shootings.

1. An inquest could now follow to establish those things?
2. An inquest might be more likely to get helpful answers once the prospect of prosecution is removed – there’s no requirement to incriminate yourself at a FAI (and I assume Coroner’s inquest are the same).
3. What part of the media coverage you have heard about this incident makes you think there is a recruitment / tactical issue in this case?

A separate legal stream for the prosecution or investigation of police officers invites a perception of bias.

I agree.  We can’t have an exemption from murder charges because someone happens to be wearing a police uniform when they do it, even if they only end up in that situation through red mist, poor training, and weak briefings.  Armed officers must expect that when they pull the trigger there IS an investigation with potential serious consequences not just a “what can we learn from this” inquiry.

BUT I’m not 100% opposed to anonymity for firearms officers, but then I’d actually say that should probably be the case for most accused.  A presumption of innocence should probably require the judge to hear why the world needs to know you were accused of a crime (there will be cases where that is in the interest of justice), obviously different after conviction.

What part of the media coverage you have heard about this incident makes you think there is a recruitment / tactical issue in this case?

Nothing in particular – I was talking generalities.  It is however pretty obvious to me that lives were not in immediate danger – the car was boxed in.  So something went wrong in the decision making process to pull the trigger

What I want to see is truthful evidence given so that we actually find out what went wrong.  At the moment we are not finding out because the risk of prosecution means the oifficers will slant their evidence.  Again I say – do we want to see prosecutions of officers which I can never remeber a sucessful one – or do we want to find out why these happen?  We cannot have both

I did not say blanket immunity – indeed I said the opposite

Edit – meaning if they shoot someone in the back as they are running away then a prosecution is fair – thats the sort of thing I meant by deliberate rather than in this case a misjudgement

It is however pretty obvious to me that lives were not in immediate danger – the car was boxed in.

Not in the bodycam footage I saw on the news reports?

Transcript of the court evidence  I didn’t follow it closely tho

He was not well boxed in, but it still seems pretty rash to me to kill him. This is the first I’ve seen of the footage.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6245454rj3o

You think that being prosecuted under the law is the same as some criminal group putting a bounty on an officers head ? **** knows how you came to that conclusion.

That isn’t my conclusion. That’s your interpretation

Even if it had taken them only 30 minutes, it would not have been a certain sign that the trial was flawed.

I didn’t say that the trial was flawed. It speaks to the decision to go to trial…

1. An inquest could now follow to establish those things?

The inquest was opened and adjourned on 2nd October 2022. Please see my post above for one route to conclude it

I think its wrong to say that the CPS got it wrong with the evidential test, and realistic prospect of convicition before the trial:

– they don’t know for sure what the crown witnesses will say or how they will come across in the witness box
– they have no real idea what any defence witnesses will say
– if sufficiency of evidence really was the problem the Judge would have prevented the decision going to the jury

That’s why there’s a criminal investigation, directed by the CPS for serious cases such as this

That’s why there’s a criminal investigation, directed by the CPS for serious cases such as this

No, the CPS barrister might have all the prosecution statements at his disposal, including perhaps having spoken to some key witnesses but they really don’t know which words will come out the witnesses mouth in the witness box, they are not allowed to coach or rehearse witnesses.  The defence barrister will want to cross examine those witnesses, the prosecutor can guess the sort of questions that might be asked and perhaps the sort of answers the witness might give, but they can’t control the questions.  Moreover they can’t control the demeanour of the witness in the witness box – do they appear certain, too confident, vague, confused, contradictory, arrogant.  All of that plays a very important part in how Juries treat that evidence.

they will know who the likely defence witnesses will be, but until the day the defence case starts (by which time the crown case is closed, you can’t add extra prosecution witnesses), but potentially not much idea what exactly they will say which might undermine their case.  They don’t know if the accused will give evidence themselves – often the defence don’t even know that at the start of the trial.

a reasonable prospect of a conviction doesn’t mean a very good bet, it doesn’t even mean more likely than not.  About 80% of court cases result in a conviction, but over 65% of cases are guilty plea – so cases that get to a trial day are slightly more likely the person to walk free.

All of that plays a very important part in how Juries treat that evidence.

What are you implying? Commit every defendant to Crown Court just in case the jury likes/doesn’t like certain witnesses?

I think that you’re demeaning the extremely experienced criminal Barristers (that this country undervalues) who make judgements according to their briefings from CPS lawyers, the evidence and the wishes of the victim

so cases that get to a trial day are slightly more likely the person to walk free

Because they’re the ones who are (or believe themselves to be) not guilty. The rest take the discounted sentence and plead guilty

This practitioner is leaving the room 🙂