Somerthing Stange About This?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25759909

Police Chief to face health and safety charges after an unarmed man was shot dead by an officer.

/// The Crown Prosecution Service believes there is "sufficient evidence" to prove the force broke health and safety laws. ///

[Zeuhl]

Well that would definitely put someone's Health & Safety at risk -

shooting them in the chest with a high velocity weapon

I can't see the officer involved being charged for anything assuming he or she complied with the force's rules of engagement.

But if those rules of engagement were at fault - as this H&S charge suggests - and that led to an unarmed person sitting in a car being shot without warning, then it's strange the Police Chief isn't being charged with Corporate Manslaughter or whatever any organisation would be charged with if a failing in their Duty of Care led to someone's death.

[youngmafbog]

Yes, I find that odd too Zehul.

[jake-the-peg]

The CPS say that they don't want to bring a higher charge because a jury would be likely to think the officers actions were necessary.

So speculating about the sort of scenarios that might result in this?:

Say armed police stop wrong vehicle - drunk passenger gets aggressive with police who shoot him

Now I'm not suggesting that's what happened but it's the sort of thing that might result in such a scenario

[browntrout]

What do you mean - a higher charge. did you read the article. CPS said no charges warranted against the shooter. full stop.
The H & s prosecution is a technical thing that has happened several times before. the Chief constable will not be personally liable, whatever the verdict. If guilty the Force ( i.e. the taxpayer) will get a hefty fine. some procedures may or may not be changed and life will carry on as before.

[jno]

life will carry on as before

Grainger's won't.

[browntrout]

Like I said. life will carry on as before. without Grainger.

[Zeuhl]

/The H & s prosecution is a technical thing/

indeed, that appears to be at the nub of the question

if the force were guilty of causing someone's death by not complying with some Health & Safety 'technical thing', why aren't they in the frame for Corporate Manslaughter.

A coach company that didn't service its vehicles properly probably would be

[FredPuli43]

The force hadn't got a duty of care to the man, so no manslaughter.

The link explains everything, doesn't it AOG ? Good for the DM.

[ludwig]

// The Crown Prosecution Service believes there is "sufficient evidence" to prove the force broke health and safety laws. //

I bet the police marksman wasn't wearing the right kind of eye protection.

[anotheoldgit]

FredPuli43

/// The link explains everything, doesn't it AOG ? Good for the DM. ///

I wouldn't know seeing that this is a BBC link.

[FredPuli43]

So it is, AOG. No wonder it made sense, read as a whole