Mandy Lifeboats Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 24 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said: Yes, you’d be convicted of a crime. That doesn’t automatically mean jail time. Seems very much like a suspended sentence situation for the average Joe to me. Not sure if @Mandy Lifeboats has any particular expertise here but he appears to agree. No 2 cases are the same. In my opinion, a person with no criminal record, who pleaded guilty at the first opportunity, assisted Police with the investigation, expressed remorse, apologised to the victim, was in full time employment, was mentally stable, was not in a position of power, does not flea the scene and committed the offence during excessive self defence after seeing a loved one seriously assaulted......... is going to get a suspended sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheepyvillian Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 1 hour ago, foreveryoung said: I'm sure we will find out soon, just my opinion. The AR officer got away with shooting an innocent Charles Mendez when the London bombings occured (yes a diffrent situation), which makes me think he may get away with this incident. But we will see? It's not a competition who's right and wrong all the time, as some make It's a valid point you make about the "Mendez incident. I had actually forgot about that tragedy. Fwiw, I actually thought that was unforgivable. What it does show, is the power these armed response officers wield. If they start talking about not being allowed to do their job properly, regardless of how the public view the situation, and start talking about refusing to do the job, you're going to have some very nervous people in positions of authority. Because, to this day, I don't know how the officer involved in the Mendez shooting was not held accountable. Someone, at least, should have been held accountable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam-AVFC Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 1 minute ago, sheepyvillian said: It's a valid point you make about the "Mendez incident. I had actually forgot about that tragedy. Fwiw, I actually thought that was unforgivable. What it does show, is the power these armed response officers wield. If they start talking about not being allowed to do their job properly, regardless of how the public view the situation, and start talking about refusing to do the job, you're going to have some very nervous people in positions of authority. Because, to this day, I don't know how the officer involved in the Mendez shooting was not held accountable. Someone, at least, should have been held accountable. 1 hour ago, Mandy Lifeboats said: That incident was completely different. The officer that killed him was wrongly informed by superiors that he was a terrorist and highly dangerous. Furthermore the officer was instructed to stop him entering the underground system where he was believed to be planning to detonate a bomb. The officer that killed him did not commit a crime or operate outside his remit. He did what he was told to do with ruthless efficiency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheepyvillian Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 1 minute ago, Sam-AVFC said: And who was held accountable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 4 hours ago, bickster said: He’s going to jail, nothing in the new bits of video change that. Disgaree with you. He should be fired but going prison after seeing full footage. Not a chance 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandy Lifeboats Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 4 minutes ago, sheepyvillian said: And who was held accountable? No single officer received any conviction or disciplinary action. The Met Police as a whole were prosecuted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam-AVFC Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 4 minutes ago, sheepyvillian said: And who was held accountable? No one, which is a disgrace. I'd just read @Mandy Lifeboats post earlier and shuffled it your way to clarify why the officer doing the shooting was not culpable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 1 hour ago, bickster said: Do you realise how the law works in this country? I'm really not sure you do Anyone doing that to someone else would get jail time, a police officer will be treated more harshly because of their position in society and in the interests of public trust in the service. With added responsibility comes harsher punishment once the trust has been betrayed. The media will have absolutely nothing to do with it but what the people sharing that video have done is make it harder to form an unbiased jury. Didnt Atkinsons officiers get off after actually killing him? So how can thia guy go to prison for less. That makes no sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheepyvillian Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 2 minutes ago, Sam-AVFC said: No one, which is a disgrace. I'd just read @Mandy Lifeboats post earlier and shuffled it your way to clarify why the officer doing the shooting was not culpable. He didn't even shout "Armed Police" before shooting. Hence, the jury, at the inquiry, refusing to agree to a verdict of lawful killing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreveryoung Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 42 minutes ago, bickster said: He’s absolutely not a threat, he’s sat down, compliant with what he’s been told to do by officers, hands behind head. It is excessive force. You are completely wrong on this sorry. He flapped, sat down uncuffed, he is 100% still a threat and could kick off again at anytime. He'd just tried to beat the shit out of a armed officer, in this situation he was right to get him on the floor and use force to do so in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted July 28 Moderator Share Posted July 28 7 minutes ago, Demitri_C said: Didnt Atkinsons officiers get off after actually killing him? So how can thia guy go to prison for less. That makes no sense PC Benjamin Monk was sentenced to 8 years for manslaughter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandy Lifeboats Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 4 minutes ago, sheepyvillian said: He didn't even shout "Armed Police" before shooting. Hence, the jury, at the inquiry, refusing to agree to a verdict of lawful killing. He is not required to do so. We live in a world where a suicide bomber can detonate a bomb by simply connecting 2 wires taped to fingers. If its necessary and reasonable to so so, shots in the head without warning are perfectly legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandy Lifeboats Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 7 minutes ago, sheepyvillian said: He didn't even shout "Armed Police" before shooting. Hence, the jury, at the inquiry, refusing to agree to a verdict of lawful killing. Your post is very misleading although I doubt you intend to do so. Any jury makes a decision based upon the entirety of the facts before them. You cannot quote one of those facts as justification for the verdict. "Refusing to agree a verdict of lawful killing" does not mean the killing was unlawful. It simply means there is insufficient evidence to prove that. There was also a lack of evidence of any officer acting unlawfully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheepyvillian Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 1 minute ago, Mandy Lifeboats said: Your post is very misleading although I doubt you intend to do so. Any jury makes a decision based upon the entirety of the facts before them. You cannot quote one of those facts as justification for the verdict. "Refusing to agree a verdict of lawful killing" does not mean the killing was unlawful. It simply means there is insufficient evidence to prove that. There was also a lack of evidence of any officer acting unlawfully. The fact he didn't shout "Armed Response" is an appalling mistake for an armed officer to make. That command should be, to AR, as habitual as giving a caution to someone under arrest. Never in all my dealings with AR, have I not been met with screams of "Armed Response!" Armed Response!". It's a tactic to disoreiantate the suspect. When the jury returned that open verdict, the old Bill were fuming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 20 minutes ago, bickster said: PC Benjamin Monk was sentenced to 8 years for manslaughter i thought i was going crazy but i was thinking of pc bettley smith who did as bad as this officer but got off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheepyvillian Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 16 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said: He is not required to do so. We live in a world where a suicide bomber can detonate a bomb by simply connecting 2 wires taped to fingers. If its necessary and reasonable to so so, shots in the head without warning are perfectly legal. There was plenty of missed opportunities leading up to the killing. He could have easily been incapacitated, but for the incompetence of certain officers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandy Lifeboats Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 2 minutes ago, sheepyvillian said: The fact he didn't shout "Armed Response" is an appalling mistake for an armed officer to make. That command should be, to AR, as habitual as giving a caution to someone under arrest. Never in all my dealings with AR, have I not been met with screams of "Armed Response!" Armed Response!". It's a tactic to disoreiantate the suspect. When the jury returned that open verdict, the old Bill were fuming. You have hit the nail on the head. It was an appaling mistake. Not a criminal act. You give a caution to a person under arrest as soon as its safe and practical to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandy Lifeboats Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 1 minute ago, sheepyvillian said: There was plenty of missed opportunities leading up to the killing. He could have easily been incapacitated, but for the incompetence of certain officers. You have hit the nail on the head. It was incompetent not criminal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheepyvillian Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 Just now, Mandy Lifeboats said: You have hit the nail on the head. It was an appaling mistake. Not a criminal act. You give a caution to a person under arrest as soon as its safe and practical to do so. Mark Duggan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheepyvillian Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 3 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said: You have hit the nail on the head. It was incompetent not criminal. My point being, Armed Response officers are not easily held accountable for their actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts