Why Should This Police Officer Be Charged With Murder For Carrying Out His Duty?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2710726/BREAKING-NEWS-Former-police-officer-charged-murder-Azelle-Rodney-died-shot-police-nine-years-ago.html

His 'victim' was a known criminal who was in a car along with others who were carrying firearms, he was also wanted by the police over a double stabbing

/// Wesley Lovell and Frank Graham, the other occupants of the VW Golf, were jailed for seven and six years respectively in January 2006 after pleading guilty to possession of firearms. ///

/// At the time of his death Rodney was wanted over a double stabbing in Ealing. ///

[anotheoldgit]

ColinandJess

Yes, you have said that you have been trained in all that is necessary to drive in a high speed pursuit and surveillance.

That could mean that you have passed your driving test and have good eyesight.

Come on don't be shy tell us what your job is?

[jackthehat]

The crux of the prosecution rests on the 'intent'.

The prosectors in the trial of the tragic death of the baby were satisfied that they could persuade a jury to convict the waste-of-space responsible of Manslaughter because he was indeed responsible for the death of the baby.....they were not as convinced that they could prove that he intended to kill.

E7 may well stand trial for murder.....it is yet for a jury to decide that he intended to kill Azelle Rodney.....or not.

[jackthehat]

For someone who is curiously reticent about fully disclosing his 'military' past, AOG, it ill-behoves you to ask questions about someone else's credentials...

[anotheoldgit]

jackthehat

/// they were not as convinced that they could prove that he intended to
kill. ///

So battering a six-week-old baby with a shoe and plastic bottle and he had no intention of killing the infant??????????

And sending out an armed response unit in pursuit of some armed drug gang and they did not expect anyone to be killed???????????

Perhaps if anyone is guilty it is the senior officer who found it necessary to send out armed offices in the first place?

[anotheoldgit]

Perhaps we should think about bringing back truncheons, that sorted the baddies out in my day.

Did I hear someone "yes but there wasn't as many baddies as there are today"

NO, I didn't think I did.

[Zeuhl]

aog

someone more qualified and experienced than you with the opportunity to carefully review all the evidence has decided this officer has a case to answer.

Get over it for heaven's sake.

and in the interests of rational debate, your suggestion that it was justified by 'not having evidence there isn't a sub-machine gun in a car' would in fact justify spraying rounds into just about any vehicle, so is clearly nonsense.

[jackthehat]

///So battering a six-week-old baby with a shoe and plastic bottle and he had no intention of killing the infant?????????? ///

He obviously intended to hurt the baby, however, despicable as his actions were proving that he intended to kill the baby was something of which the CPS didn't feel sufficiently certain to charge him with murder.

///And sending out an armed response unit in pursuit of some armed drug gang and they did not expect anyone to be killed??????????? ///

The object of the exercise was to detain and arrest this gang.....the fact that it is armed officers doing the detaining tends to be very persuasive.....and if it isn't, then the officers are trained to react *within* the Law.

[Zeuhl]

^ ???

/perhaps we should think about bringing back truncheons/

British police are equipped with very effective batons.

What is that ramble all about?

[Gromit]

// Perhaps if anyone is guilty it is the senior officer who found it necessary to send out armed offices in the first place? //

The planning was indeed poor - "Let's stop this car with which contains a machine gun, beside this busy pub beer garden - what could go wrong?"

[jackthehat]

///Before the 1970s, it was common for law enforcement in the United Kingdom to "brain" suspects (strike their heads) in order to stun them or knock them unconscious. However, this was unreliable and potentially fatal./// -wiki

[jackthehat]

The above should have read;

Ah yes, AOG - The harmless truncheon.....

///Before the 1970s, it was common for law enforcement in the United Kingdom to "brain" suspects (strike their heads) in order to stun them or knock them unconscious. However, this was unreliable and potentially fatal./// - wiki

[SeaJayPea]

I don't quite see how this scumbag in Wales has got into this thread, but for the record - Pearce was charged with both murder and manslaughter. The jury, having heard all the evidence, deliberated for 35 hours and found him guilty of the lesser charge. They heard it all, I haven't, I'm prepared to accept their decision.

This man, no longer a serving police officer, is charged with murder. The enquiry found there was "no lawful justification" for the shooting. They heard all the evidence and reached that decision. The officer will be charged and may or may not be found guilty by a jury. Whatever the verdict, I'll be happy with that. And due process will have been done.

Unlike in the case of Jean Charles de Menezes.

[anotheoldgit]

///Before the 1970s, it was common for law enforcement in the United Kingdom to "brain" suspects (strike their heads) in order to stun them or knock them unconscious. However, this was unreliable and potentially fatal./// -wiki

As Police Constable Sidney Miles was to find out, in the Craig and Bentley case, now if he had been armed?

[jackthehat]

Perhaps Craig wouldn't have shot him.......it doesn't follow that he would have shot Craig or Bentley.

[Zeuhl]

/As Police Constable Sidney Miles was to find out, in the Craig and Bentley case, now if he had been armed? /

Police on the Barlow & Parker roof were armed.

Miles' death and the subsequent revenge killing of Bentley were the result of what was, by modern Police standards, incompetence by the Officer in Charge

[Gromit]

Colinandjess,
You will not get an answer.