Donate SIGN UP
Gravatar

Answers

21 to 32 of 32rss feed

First Previous 1 2

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/media-advisory-notice-the-fatal-police-shooting-of-chris-kaba

 

"The Solicitor General confirms the requirement not to publish material which could prejudice ongoing criminal investigations and potential prosecutions.

Following the fatal police shooting of Chris Kaba on 05 September 2022 a homicide investigation has commenced in respect of the officer who fired the fatal shot.

The Solicitor General, the Rt Hon Michael Tomlinson KC MP, wishes to amplify the importance of not publishing any material where there is a risk that it could prejudice any ongoing criminal investigation or potential prosecution. Publishing this material could amount to contempt of court.

Editors, publishers and social media users should take legal advice to ensure they are in a position to fully comply with the obligations to which they are subject under both the common law and statutory regimes in relation to publications."

Another potential George Floyd waiting in the wings, with the resultant rioting and looting? Does the fact that the bloke who was shot was black, and not white, make a difference? IMO, I think it does, if the `victim`was white, the cop in question wouldn't be put through all the attendant publicity by the MET apologising to appease the public.

One moment they're handing them in: the next they're taking them back.

 

Seems a bit indecisive for someone allowed to carry firearms.

//  Does the fact that the bloke who was shot was black, and not white, make a difference? IMO, I think it does, if the `victim`was white, the cop in question wouldn't be put through all the attendant publicity //

iI am reminded of a police shooting in Cheshire a decade ago.

// The shooting happened as Grainger was sitting in the Audi in Culcheth. The officer fired through the car's front window, and police threw a CS gas canister into the vehicle. They shot out its tyres in an operation that caused onlookers to scream in terror. No firearms were found in the car, on Grainger, nor at any address linked to him.

Anthony Grainger, 36, was shot through the chest as he sat in a car in the village of Culcheth, Cheshire, on the evening of 3 March 201

They shot out its tyres in an operation that caused onlookers to scream in terror. No firearms were found in the car, on Grainger, nor at any address linked to him. //

That police marksman was NOT prosecuted.

We had a Hogan's Alley range at our central Met range and also a cinema range.

cinema? what about a law library

The law hasnt changed ( well just a little) and the defence which I regard as cast iron, is whether you ( subjectively) felt your life was in danger.

I wouldda thought this covered everything

( bearing in mind the police fired guns twice in the last year)

Following but not because of Jean Charles menenez - a further ccondition was added - that it had to be reasonable on the  balance of probabilities ( an onlooker, juryman or judge)

Bluff called. Nothing to see here.

in other words - it excluded 

really really believing that life was endangered ( honest judge) I thought my number was up....

and then letting on that it was because Mystic Meg had predicted it in the sunny sun that morning - this is not objectively reasonable

OK it is, to TTT but that doesnt count

Now reader - if you have got down to here, even the mods often fail in this - this is a bit of a stretch away from demanding legal safeguards others dont have

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/816313/Anthony_Grainger_Inquiry.pdf

is the location of the Anthony Grainger inquiry ( report) - he doesnt look  white to me ( sort of like Meghan's brother or something)

to hem hem clarify  ( I sound a bit like Naomi) - the criminal law ( a/c to  the Beeb) has not  changed.

The added condition of being reasonable to an objective observer  is in disciplinary processes.

This is , I agree, not really what the news reports have said over the last few days

Ive got a female friend who was once 'shagging' an

armed respose officer.

He boasted about shooting a man.

Thought it was funny.

It was a big thing at the the time here in stoke.

But of course he got away with it.

 

here:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff74860d03e7f57eaacc2#undefined

judges making a meal of it all. Civil cases ( coroners etc) there is an additional reasonableness test.

//I don't blame them for handing in their weapons.

Why on earth would anyone choose to be an armed police officer when it has no pros but the massive con of potentially being accused of murder if you ever use the weapon?//

My answer copied from a different thread.

21 to 32 of 32rss feed

First Previous 1 2

Do you know the answer?

Plods Put Down Their Guns.....

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.