So Lets Crucify Another Copper For Trying To Do His Job.......

[ToraToraTora]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68502539

So he shot a known criminal in a stolen car.

[ToraToraTora]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/police-officer-cleared-of-murder-1235948.html

 

[Redhelen72]

Thankfully things have changed since 1997!

[retrocop]

It would appear not with regard to the incident. As for the acquittal. Who knows?

Many thanks for supplying the link TTT.

[andy-hughes]

Retrocop - // Sorry AH if my input offends or outrages . It was merely an observation that this recent incident was not the first of its kind and had uncanny similarities. //

Nothing you post would ever move me to offence or outrage, it's never important enough for that.

'Uncanny similarities' are just that - a suggestion that there is anything other than a superfical similarity is irrelavent, as is a comparison of any kind.

All crimes are unique, I would have thought you understood that.

[Ellipsis]

Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler ...

[andy-hughes]

// It would appear not with regard to the incident. As for the acquittal. Who knows?

Many thanks for supplying the link TTT. //

It's utterly pointless trying to compare 'like with like' because no two situations like this are the same.

Similar, but that's meaningless.

You might as well say the sun was shining on both days, that does not create a link, and neither do the scenarios posted.

[Peter Pedant]

Should cops let criminals shoot first?

hypothetical question - let us stick with the law

Yes the police can shoot first if they reasonably believe the criminal is armed - like you know he points a sock at then ( cd be a gun see?)

Problem is when there is no gun - so the sockie sockie stunt falls flat ( very flat sometimes as in Gibraltar)

and so you fall back on a cock and bolloooocks story about using a car as a weapon.

I agree that in the past it was "shoot whom you like, we dont care" until Jean Paul Menenez

[pastafreak]

Ellipsis, I saw that and was thinking of it as I read this thread earlier. It was a real insight into what influences different jurists in their descision making. 

[andy-hughes]

Peter - Posts with langauge attempting to evade the site language meter will be deleted.

[Peter Pedant]

(Ewin case)... said the last thing he had wanted to do was shoot, but he believed his life and those of bystanders were in danger.

is a known acceptable defence.

the fact that juries in the past have said - "oh yes yes, quite so, armed" does NOT mean that in this post Couzens era, they will in the future.

[THECORBYLOON]

In the earlier case, the officer was trapped between two cars and the driver died from major internal injuries.

In the latest case, the officer was apparently on the bonnet and shot the driver in the head.

Would a shot to the head not usually be to kill rather than to incapacitate?

[andy-hughes]

PP - // 

(Ewin case)... said the last thing he had wanted to do was shoot ... //

I would hope that in the mind and speech of anyone who is not a complete psychopath, such an approach could be taken as read.

[Peter Pedant]

Peter - Posts with langauge attempting to evade the site language meter will be deleted.

good god - I thought it was a standard post on a known defence in criminal law - no wonder AB remains ig.

"cock and bull  story" is a naughty phrase - oh  my !

 

[Ellipsis]

> It was a real insight into what influences different jurists in their decision making. 

A rhetorical question: which one was most like TTT? 😁

[andy-hughes]

Corby - // 

In the earlier case, the officer was trapped between two cars and the driver died from major internal injuries.

In the latest case, the officer was apparently on the bonnet and shot the driver in the head.

Would a shot to the head not usually be to kill rather than to incapacitate? //

Your post does somewhat underline my response to retrocop - you cannot use one case as an illustration of another, or as in PP's post, wonder if the jury's verdict on one case will be similar to another jury's verdict in another case.

Both cases involve cars, police, criminals and guns, but that doesn't make them similar.

Oranges and raspberries are fruit, but that does not make them similar.

[Peter Pedant]

Andy - if you delete posts on defences to murder in  common law then further comments (on defences to murder) will make no  sense....

ho hum Fri  after noon on AB

Did the phrase -  " a reasonable belief that the suspect is armed is an adequate defence to a murder charge" - escape mumsy's unmimsy deletion rage?

[andy-hughes]

Peter - // 

Peter - Posts with langauge attempting to evade the site language meter will be deleted.

good god - I thought it was a standard post on a known defence in criminal law - no wonder AB remains ig.

"cock and bull  story" is a naughty phrase - oh  my ! //

Your post was not deleted for the phrase 'cock and bull', and I think you know that.

Please let's stick to the OP.

Thank you.

 

[Peter Pedant]

dont answer that, corby! ( thx to dads army)

[andy-hughes]

PP - // 

Andy - if you delete posts on defences to murder in  common law then further comments (on defences to murder) will make no  sense....

ho hum Fri  after noon on AB

Did the phrase -  " a reasonable belief that the suspect is armed is an adequate defence to a murder charge" - escape mumsy's unmimsy deletion rage? //

For the final time, your post was deleted for a word mis-spelt to avoid the censor software, you know what it was.

That's the end of this exchange.

Thank you.

[Peter Pedant]

 you cannot use one case as an illustration of another, or as in PP's post,

yes you can for chrissakes - it is called precedent. - and will be followed if the facts are 'four-square with the older case'.

VERY ingrained ( proof against deletion) in the anglo-saxon  mind ( precedent that  is!) - hence the squawking in parliament when Hoyle chose not to  follow it.

it has I agree to be law and not fact - and here is unsworn opinion but what the hell this is AB !