Metropolitan Firearms Officers Resigning From The Role.

[Scrumpy]

Another bastard.. waste of space.. 
He looks like an innocent 'Mummy's boy'..  Not so..
BLM !!! .. what a joke.. Not in this case..

[Diasi]

The problem is that it's the black culture & their communities see it as normal life & nothing wrong with it.

[JBR]

As long as the people in control of this country keep pandering and supporting our criminal elements, the worse things are going to get.

The police must be sick and tired of accusations made against them when simply doing their job.
It is said that the police, like the armed forces, may not strike.

I can see the time, not too far ahead now, when they have all had enough of the lack of support from their political masters, that they will decide to do just that en masse.

What I'd really like to see is they, and others with the necessary skills and mind-set, taking over running this sorry country.  Yes, not a 'democracy' I know, but our so-called democracy just isn't working today.

Yes, a revolution!  I'm sure it will happen if nothing is done to improve matters.

[Michael Rolls]

I still don't understand how the officer has been charged with murder. Surely murder requires premeditation? A charge (not that I think that there should be any charge) of manslaughter or unlawful killing I could understand - but murder?

[Diasi]

I still don't understand how the officer has been charged with murder. Surely murder requires premeditation? A charge (not that I think that there should be any charge) of manslaughter or unlawful killing I could understand - but murder?

No it doesn't, my understanding, from studying the legislation, is that a murder can be a killing via an act that is reckless & showing a disregard as to whether or not death could result from that action.

[Michael Rolls]

thanks, Phil - come to think of it I am quite wrong - a lot of murders are spur of the moment

[Diasi]

thanks, Phil - come to think of it I am quite wrong - a lot of murders are spur of the moment

Hopefully Cassandra will add to this but the difference between manslaughter & murder depends on thresholds.

An example I would offer is when someone throws a single punch, in the heat of the moment, which kills someone, it's usually charged as manslaughter but if that person, in the heat of the moment swings a chain saw that he's using, it would usually be a murder charge.

Although it's being highlighted more & more, it still remains the case that the person who throws one punch may not realise that it could kill the victim.

In the case of swinging a chain saw, everyone knows that there's an extremely high likelihood of a fatal injury.

However, there are other factors involved so if the man swings his chainsaw at someone who he views as posing a risk to his life, it would be a good case of self defence & no crime committed.

This is the crux of the police shooting.

[dextrous63]

No it doesn't, my understanding, from studying the legislation, is that a murder can be a killing via an act that is reckless & showing a disregard as to whether or not death could result from that action.

That is also my understanding.  I'd imagine that there's a whole raft of potential criteria that needs to be applied at times to delineate between the charge of manslaughter or murder being applied.  No doubt Cassandra will be able to clarify some of these.

[klondike]

One advantage of a murder charge is with the right jury the FAO would never be convicted. If I were on a jury (I never was and think I'm too old now) I'd want a high level of proof to convict a FAO shooting a known criminal thought to be armed.

[JBR]

I agree, and I expect that this will be the decision of the court, if he is actually brought to trial.

I believe that most of those coppers have now agreed to pick up their firearms again.  I wonder whether they'll now be prepared to pull the trigger next time they're faced with an armed criminal.

[Cassandra]

That is also my understanding.  I'd imagine that there's a whole raft of potential criteria that needs to be applied at times to delineate between the charge of manslaughter or murder being applied.  No doubt Cassandra will be able to clarify some of these.

Keeping it brief:

Murder

The crime of murder is committed, where a person:

Of sound mind and discretion (i.e. sane); unlawfully kills (i.e. not self-defence or other justified killing); any reasonable creature (human being);  with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH).

Manslaughter
Manslaughter can be committed in one of three ways:

1) Killing with the intent for murder but where a partial defence applies, namely loss of control, diminished responsibility or killing pursuant to a suicide pact.
   
2) Conduct that was grossly negligent given the risk of death, and did kill ("gross negligence manslaughter"); and
   
3) Conduct taking the form of an unlawful act involving a danger of some harm that resulted in death ("unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter").

Clearly the officer (NX121) has been charged with Murder under the (not self-defence or other justified killing)!

In my opinion a harsh, unjustified and very questionable prosecution reference, reflecting the present reaction of the DPP to the regime of Public Internet Chat channels! No police officer within this circumstance has ever been charged with murder.

These officers have to make mili-second decisions. Surely an inquiry is sufficient to determine as to whether prosecution is necessary. As I always say though, we must hear the evidence first!

[dextrous63]

Many thanks Cassandra.  Have copied that and emailed it to myself for future reference.👍😊

[Diasi]

I agree, and I expect that this will be the decision of the court, if he is actually brought to trial.

I believe that most of those coppers have now agreed to pick up their firearms again.  I wonder whether they'll now be prepared to pull the trigger next time they're faced with an armed criminal.

One of them just needs to shout out, very loudly, he's reaching for a gun.

If there's no gun found it still counts as a grounds for shooting as the officers made decisions based on what they believed to be true at the time.

There's no requirement for the officers to have to allow a suspect to produce a gun & point it at them before shooting.

The CPS guidance allows for a householder to use reasonable force, including lethal force & to use anything they can lay their hands on as a weapon, if he / she believes that an intruder presents a threat to them & in particular their life. The guidance also states that the householder doesn't have to wait for the intruder to actually do anything.

It's the threat perceived by the householder that matters.

So if an intruder enters my home I can guarantee that he will have stated his intention to do me severe harm & he can't deny it as he's dead, unless he follows my orders to the letter & lays face down on the floor to wait for the police to arrive.

P.S. I rather like the actions of a guy in the US who used his cross bow to confront an intruder & gave him the option of being shot or phoning the police himself.

[Cassandra]

One of them just needs to shout out, very loudly, he's reaching for a gun.

If there's no gun found it still counts as a grounds for shooting as the officers made decisions based on what they believed to be true at the time.

There's no requirement for the officers to have to allow a suspect to produce a gun & point it at them before shooting.

The CPS guidance allows for a householder to reasonable force, including lethal force & to use anything they can lay their hands on as a weapon, if he / she believes that an intruder presents a threat to them & in particular their life. The guidance also states that the householder doesn't have to wait for the intruder to actually do anything.

It's the threat perceived by the householder that matters.

So if an intruder enters my home I can guarantee that he will have stated his intention to do me severe harm & he can't deny it as he's dead, unless he follows my orders to the letter & lays face down on the floor to wait for the police to arrive.

P.S. I rather like the actions of a guy in the US who used his cross bow to confront an intruder & gave him the option of being shot or phoning the police himself.

Over here I was advised, if you are threatened "always pull the bastards into the house before shooting em!" More or less 'your home is your castle'. In our area (North Michigan) theres very little violent, or serious crime. However that said all my neighbours are 'tooled up', some with veritable arsenals of machine guns!

Its all about the 2nd amendment and historical inheritance to bear arms. I 'inherited' 3 pistols and a number of rifles / carbines, (subject to licence) when I purchased my home at auction. I must say, I feel safer with them here, but could only defend myself by discharging any of them, as a very last resort.

[Diasi]

Over here I was advised, if you are threatened "always pull the bastards into the house before shooting em!" More or less 'your home is your castle'. In our area (North Michigan) theres very little violent, or serious crime. However that said all my neighbours are 'tooled up', some with veritable arsenals of machine guns!

Its all about the 2nd amendment and historical inheritance to bear arms. I 'inherited' 3 pistols and a number of rifles / carbines, (subject to licence) when I purchased my home at auction. I must say, I feel safer with them here, but could only defend myself by discharging any of them, as a very last resort.

I find it quite sad that I should even have to think about personal home defence, but then I think about some battered 90-yr-old in a hospital bed.

Like you, I would only take action as a very last resort.