Does it worry you that police officers in the UK are increasingly carrying firearms?

First topic message reminder :

I Have become quite worried by the fact that UK police officers being issued firearms due to the increasingly violent nature of crime they are having to face today, but what is the true the costs of such a measure to our society? is this a road we should be going down at all? if not what should we do instead?

Tory dogma:

Never explain,
Never apologise,
Never admit fallibility.

Bellatori wrote:-
I think you have got the wrong end of the stick…..The point here is what the coroner (judge) directed in court. I repeat... he directed the jury to pass a verdict of lawful killing if the policeman believed rightly or wrongly that he was in imminent danger….In my mind we have now a legalised shoot to kill.

Heard the news today? A four-year-old boy was accidentally shot dead by US forces in Helmand in Afghanistan, after troops had mistaken him for the enemy amid dusty weather. If you issue guns to soldiers – and police – people are liable to get killed. And some of them will be innocent.

All of the police who stopped the minicab in which Duggan was a passenger may have thought they were in imminent danger. They’d been issued with firearms, presumably because they expected to be confronted with them. As we weren’t part of the jury, who I believe considered evidence from over 90 people, we can only speculate. I suspect that Duggan had gone out to commit murder and the police had received intelligence to that effect. I said previously that Duggan might have had the gun concealed under clothing and had then thrown it away, to avoid being caught in possession, when he tried to run off. Alternatively, the gun could have been in the shoe box in the minicab, or maybe there was more than one gun. Two independent witnesses testified that they had seen an officer remove a gun from the minicab some minutes after Duggan had been killed.

I’m well aware of what you’re trying to say, and I know that some laws are in effect made by the precedent of court judgements. However, an inquest is not the same as a court of law, it doesn’t use the adversarial system and it doesn’t apportion blame. I don’t think the direction of one coroner means that we now have a new policy on gun use. In any case, there is still an IPCC investigation to be concluded. The contradictions in the police evidence are very disturbing and there certainly appears to have been a ham-fisted attempt to cover up what actually happened.

You possibly overstate the importance of the coroner’s direction of the jury in the Duggan case. You say that he gave the jury “no real choice” other than to return a verdict of lawful killing, but two of the jurors ignored the direction, and the others could have had they been so minded. You no doubt remember the Clive Ponting trial, where the judge directed the jury to find him guilty but they acquitted him. (Quite right too - what’s the point of having a jury if a judge is going to tell them what to decide?)

I believe he has children.

Very much so. Despite being only 29 at the time of his death, Duggan had at least six children by three or four different women. He had three by his partner, but another woman gave birth to a child of his after his death. That may tell us something about his character, but of course it doesn’t make his death any more acceptable.

Ivan wrote:...Heard the news today?

Once again most of your post is about Duggan. Why? He is not the focus of the policy except insofar that it amounts to target a perceived bad guy and kill him. I remember the Ponting case very clearly and I don't think it is germane here. Juries do, very rarely, produce 'perverse' decisions but this was also about a man's liberty versus political embarrassment. Who likes politicians?   In the Duggan inquest I am sure having heard the Judges direction and heard and been influenced by Duggan's character, as you clearly have, they are most unlikely to consider just what the direction means.

When a judge makes a ruling or direction as this one did then it is a statement of law. It is a precedent that other judges and therefore other juries WILL have to follow. Eventually there may be a perverse decision but one wonders how extreme the shooting will have to be before it cannot be whitewashed under a 'lawful killing' verdict.

Ivan wrote:A four-year-old boy was accidentally shot dead by US forces in Helmand in Afghanistan, after troops had mistaken him for the enemy amid dusty weather. If you issue guns to soldiers – and police – people are liable to get killed. And some of them will be innocent.

Is this a sensible comparison? US forces in a war zone and police in Tottenham? Police targeting and executing (I use the pejorative testimony of the witness on the 9th floor here) a gangland killer in the UK capitol with the exigencies of hinterland Afghanistan? In fact, there was no chance of any police officer saying "I made a misjudgement and shot in error leading to an entirely regrettable death" whereas that is a likely outcome from the soldier.

A principle is established in concrete at the moment any servant of the State is issued with firearms.

Arguing about possible outcomes is already too late.

Bellatori wrote:-
Once again most of your post is about Duggan.

That’s hardly surprising if you start a thread entitled ‘Shoot to kill policy’ on the day that the Duggan inquest ended. Most of your opening post was about it.

I remember the Ponting case very clearly and I don't think it is germane here

My point was that juries don’t have to accept the direction of a judge. The Ponting jury didn’t, and two of the jury at the Duggan inquest didn’t. The other eight jurors, having listened to the evidence for three months, decided that Duggan was lawfully killed. Shouldn’t we respect their decision?

Is this a sensible comparison? US forces in a war zone and police in Tottenham?

Both soldiers in Afghanistan and police making an armed response may well feel in imminent danger, but I wasn’t comparing incidents. I was making the point that human beings are fallible, guns kill, and if you give them to people they occasionally shoot someone when they shouldn’t.

When a judge makes a ruling or direction as this one did then it is a statement of law.

Most of our laws are made by Parliament and a few stem from the EU. They also used to be made by custom, though I don’t know if that still applies. It certainly used to mean that if I kept sheep on your front lawn for ten years and you did nothing about it, I probably had the right to continue doing so. And yes, judges have made the law (most commonly in civil cases such as Jarndice v. Jarndice), but I’ve never heard of the law being made by a coroner’s verdict. I’m aware that inquests take different forms – some have a jury, most don’t – but the judge in the Duggan case was wearing his coroner’s hat. The only coroner I’ve ever met was a GP, and I’m sure his decisions don’t make UK law. I think you’ve read this wrongly, but who knows?

I think some of us may be failing to differentiate between Criminal Law and Civil Law.  Criminal Law is indeed made by Parliament, and called Statute.  It is administered by the Judiciary.

In Civil matters, Laws may also emerge from Westminster but many cases are decided by a Judge on "Precedent", which is to say that they don't constantly re-invent the wheel, but examine whether a current case is similar to one which has already been decided and so can be dealt with similarly.

oftenwrong wrote:I think some of us may be failing to differentiate between Criminal Law and Civil Law.

Indeed...

I highly recommend

http://www.medicalprotection.org/uk/england-factsheets/inquests

and more especially

from Justice.gov.uk

which is the official guidance to an inquest from which I would note

17.2 In every jury inquest the coroner decides matters of law and procedure and the jury decides the facts of the case and reaches a verdict. The jury cannot blame someone for the death. If there is any blame, this can only be established by other legal proceedings in the civil or criminal courts, although the jury can state facts which make it clear that the death was caused by a specific failure of some sort or by neglect.

Which is to say that the coroner's ruling decides the law AND is therefore precedent.

Ivan wrote:...the Duggan inquest ended. Most of your opening post was about it.

Indeed but my thrust was about judicial direction and the fact that the jury had reason to think about what happened. Most of your posts revolve around the character of Duggan which is irrelevant.

Ivan wrote:Shouldn’t we respect their decision?

Whose decision? The judge made it clear that they had no choice but to find for lawful killing because the policeman claimed he was afraid for his life.

Ivan wrote:...they occasionally shoot someone when they shouldn’t.

Irrelevant.... this is about the consideration we should give afterwards. Just because mistakes happen does not mean we should fail to give them due consideration. The judges ruling usurped the jury's ability to do so.

Ivan wrote:...I think you’ve read this wrongly, but who knows?

Nope... the justice.gov.uk pdf is very clear on this. The Judge in a jury inquest is the arbiter of the law and in this case his statement left no room for the jury to properly reflect on the situation. For all the time they spent listening to the evidence it booted for nothing. The officer stated he saw a gun (wrongly) he was afraid for his life (wrongly) but that meant they had to find for 'lawful killing'

Now I don't frankly give a toss for Duggan who, by all accounts was not one of England's finest BUT everyone should be entitled to an impartial review. This judge, by directing as he did could have saved four months of evidence just put the copper on the stand to make his statement and that should be that. Nothing else could possibly make a difference.

As I stated earlier I wonder how extreme a shooting would have to be for someone to dare to 'perversely' reject this ruling.

Summary: You can't fight City Hall.

Bellatori wrote:This judge, by directing as he did could have saved four months of evidence just put the copper on the stand to make his statement and that should be that. Nothing else could possibly make a difference.

Actually I may be wrong about this in one sense. I wonder if someone down at 'the club' had a word in his ear and said that we must be seen to be giving this a full airing before making the preordained ruling. I am sure they did not wish to have another riot so to placate the plebs we go through 4 months of evidence and then put the policeman on the stand "I was afeared for my life..." ... lawful killing. There, done. That was easy.

You have to wonder. Is the operation of justice that cynical?

Shoot to kill policies will always create controversy by it's very nature. The police or any force has a matter of seconds to make a decision, once committed to it and the trigger is pulled it's impossible to change your mind.

Controversially perhaps if capital punishment was re-instated there would be less people wishing to carry firearms, so less need for the police to be armed. Modern day technology and appeal systems in place should ensure that the wrong person isn't removed from society.

Or every citizen could enjoy the right to bear arms, as they do under the US Constitution.  They have the death penalty there too, so it's a win-win for a bloodthirsty Joe Public.

tlttf wrote:Shoot to kill policies will always create controversy by it's very nature. The police or any force has a matter of seconds to make a decision, once committed to it and the trigger is pulled it's impossible to change your mind.

I agree. So that means the training of those who carry arms is extremely important. We don't want a vigilante system or you end up with the inexcusable shooting of the young lad in Florida. However that is not really the issue I was concerned with. Once this happens you need to have proper scrutiny of what went on. My concern is that the judges direction in the Duggan case pre-empts that scrutiny.

tlttf wrote:Controversially perhaps if capital punishment was re-instated there would be less people wishing to carry firearms, so less need for the police to be armed. Modern day technology and appeal systems in place should ensure that the wrong person isn't removed from society.

Really? I doubt your first premise and I have serious reservations about the second.

Let me give you an example. Increasingly we hear that DNA evidence was used to identify a perpetrator. The odds given that two random people have identical DNA is given as millions to one. Is that actually true?



The stages of producing this unique fingerprint are given here...

If we assume there are 10 stages and each stage is 99.9% accurate then at the end of 10 stages we would have an error of 1%. How many people does that encompass? Would you convict on a 1% chance you are wrong? Is that beyond all reasonable doubt?

Did you know that in any room of 30 people the odds are better than even that two will have the same birthday?

As you can see, as a trained statistician, I am concerned about the weight that is given to statistics. A woman, a young solicitor was jailed for killing a child. What convicted her? An expert who said two cot deaths were so improbable that it could not have happened. I believe she spent four years in prison before someone finally got a grip on statistics like that. Her name, I have just found it was Sally Clark.

Comprehension is improved for my tiny mind when the Coroner in the Duggan enquiry is referred to by that description.  Although when wearing his wig, Keith Cutler is coincidentally a senior circuit judge,  coroners are not considered to be members of the courts judiciary.

When recently the luscious Nigella was giving evidence in a (criminal) court, she complained that she felt it herself to be the one "on trial". In the Coroner's enquiry under discussion, nobody was "on trial", especially not any of the policemen in the armed-response unit.

All reasonable thoughts bellatori, my first point (I believe) is the reality of what is happening at the time. More training would not change the nano seconds that a decision has to be made in.

The second point is always open to debate which is why I added the appeal process to the question. My thoughts are "If a criminal knows that should he take a life, then his life is forfeit" would/should make him think twice before carrying a firearm in the first instance, hence less armed police required. Presently if a criminal is locked up in excellent conditions, fed and watered with full access to the things on the outside, what is there to fear, especially when it is only for a few years.

tlttf wrote:My thoughts are "If a criminal knows that should he take a life, then his life is forfeit" would/should make him think twice before carrying a firearm in the first instance, hence less armed police required. Presently if a criminal is locked up in excellent conditions, fed and watered with full access to the things on the outside, what is there to fear, especially when it is only for a few years.

This sounds reasonable but in that circumstance where a criminal with a gun knows he will lose his life then he would be more likely to kill more victims because his own life is already forfeit and he has nothing further to lose.

Heretic

There doesn't seem to be much evidence that capital punishment acts as a deterrent. I say that as someone who would happily string up the likes of that animal who killed April Jones.

"In 1993 a limited posthumous pardon was granted to Derek Bentley, accepting Bentley should not have been hanged, although maintaining his guilt. "

He must have felt much better for that.

oftenwrong wrote:"In 1993 a limited posthumous pardon was granted to Derek Bentley, accepting Bentley should not have been hanged, although maintaining his guilt. "

He must have felt much better for that.

Actually OW this is a very good example of where a judge directed a jury. The coroner (by the way did you read the reference about coroners and juries I posted?) directed the jury to find 'lawful killing' and in the Bentley case the Judge directed the jury to find him guilty in what was one of the worst miscarriages I can think of. If you read the transcript of the judges summing up they could not have found Bentley anything but guilty. He wanted someone to hang and as he could not hang the gunman, Craig, he went for the severely educationally sub normal Bentley. Disgusting. truly disgusting and the pusillanimous Home Secretary whose name I really cannot be bothered to recall/look up would not pardon him because he thought the police and public would react badly even though I am certain he would have known it was completely unjustified. As you say, what was the point of a posthumous pardon if he was still held to be guilty? The mental health section here is worth reading.

The Head at my secondary school was a translator at Nuremberg. He would address the sixth form about trials and the law. This one really upset him and it left a lasting impression on me. He was very much against capital punishment (even for war criminals) which is why I cannot support tittf in this. Mistakes through accident or, as in the Bentley case, through malice are all too likely. One mistake is one mistake too many.

Dan Fante said:  "There doesn't seem to be much evidence that capital punishment acts as a deterrent"

If you were to read the Book: Mad Frank: Memoirs of a Life of Crime by Frank Fraser and James Morton (16 Feb 1995). Frank Fraser stated that on several occasions he gave someone a beating instead of killing them wholly because of the death penalty and his habit of getting captured by the law.

If I were writing my autobiography (which would be a stunningly boring volume ) I guess I might want , in retrospect, to suggest that I had much more thought-out motives for what (little) I did.
I wonder if Frank Fraser and his mate were similarly guided?

In the heat of the moment we act - later, we find reasons for our actions

boatlady wrote:If I were writing my autobiography (which would be a stunningly boring volume ) I guess I might want , in retrospect, to suggest that I had much more thought-out motives for what (little) I did.
I wonder if Frank Fraser and his mate were similarly guided?

In the heat of the moment we act - later, we find reasons for our actions

The problem with Frankie Fraser as an example is

"...he received a two-year prison sentence, served largely at Pentonville Prison. It was during this sentence that he was first certified insane"

"He took part in more bank robberies and spent more time in prison. He was again certified insane while at Durham Prison and this time sent to Broadmoor."

One has to suspect that he may not have been telling the exact truth...  

I don't think you necessarily need to be insane to rationalise your decisions after the event - I do it all the time, and I've never been sectioned - yet

boatlady wrote:I don't think you necessarily need to be insane to rationalise your decisions after the event  - I do it all the time, and I've never been sectioned - yet

Did you actually mean insane here?   

Isn't that what I said?
If not, sorry - seem to have fallen off some sort of wagon. - just referring back to your earlier post about the increasingly uninteresting Mr Fraser.

boatlady wrote:Isn't that what I said?
If not, sorry - seem to have fallen off some sort of wagon. - just referring back to your earlier post about the increasingly uninteresting Mr Fraser.

It seemed to me that it made more sense if it said sane here otherwise I did not really understand what you meant and I understand what you meant by the increasingly... oh what the hell...       

   

Bellatori wrote:-
….in the Bentley case the Judge directed the jury to find him guilty in what was one of the worst miscarriages I can think of.

Timothy John Evans? The poor sod didn’t even commit a robbery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Evans

James Hanratty? Hardly a case of “beyond all reasonable doubt”?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wrongly-hanged-hanratty-is-found-innocent-1285402.html

The Bentley case was indeed appalling, with so much resting on the ambiguity of the phrase “let him have it”. The vile judge in the case, Lord Chief Justice Goddard, used to get off on passing death sentences; his clerk said that a fresh pair of trousers had to be brought to the court after he condemned someone to hang.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/a-chief-justice-got-away-with-murder-1169087.html

That’s at least three good reasons why capital punishment is abhorrent and should never be used. As you say, one mistake is one mistake too many. The Texan authorities probably wouldn’t agree, even though they executed the wrong Carlos in 1989:-

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/may/15/carlos-texas-innocent-man-death?CMP=twt_gu

The topic of capital punishment has been discussed further on this thread:-

https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t465-judicial-killing-a-quaker-view

Bellatori said "...he received a two-year prison sentence, served largely at Pentonville Prison. It was during this sentence that he was first certified insane".

Frank Fraser was never actually insane although he was certified. The reason for the section put in place for Fraser was purely so the authorities could control him easier whilst imprisoned. by the use of drugs, the drugs where given intravenously and where known by the cons as "Liquid coshes".
Fraser was a constant problem to the prison authorities as he refused to tow the line, not only that as a recognised nutter he had at his disposal many things the rest of the inmates couldn't get.

Criminals are sometimes playing power games. Which doesn't stop just because they're in prison.

bobby wrote:Dan Fante said:  "There doesn't seem to be much evidence that capital punishment acts as a deterrent"

If you were to read the Book: Mad Frank: Memoirs of a Life of Crime by Frank Fraser and James Morton (16 Feb 1995). Frank Fraser stated that on several occasions he gave someone a beating instead of killing them wholly because of the death penalty and his habit of getting captured by the law.

Overwhelming evidence there
I once saw him in the Elephant and Castle as it happens. We both did a sort of double-take, no doubt he was used to being recognised all the time. I thought he'd be bigger.

bobby wrote: Bellatori said  "...he received a two-year prison sentence, served largely at Pentonville Prison. It was during this sentence that he was first certified insane".

Frank Fraser was never actually insane although he was certified. The reason for the section put in place for Fraser was purely so the authorities could control him easier whilst imprisoned. by the use of drugs, the drugs where given intravenously and where known by the cons as "Liquid coshes".
Fraser was a constant problem to the prison authorities as he refused to tow the line, not only that as a recognised nutter he had at his disposal many things the rest of the inmates couldn't get.

I stand corrected... when I saw the bit you wrote about "liquid cosh" it sort of rang a bell.

Very much on topic....

Greater Manchester Police chief faces shooting charges

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

But a solicitor for Mr Grainger's family said they were disappointed the police marksman was not being charged.

Disappointed but surely no one is surprised.

It later emerged the unarmed father of two had been wrongly suspected of stealing a memory stick containing the names of police informants.

The officer concerned was later heard to say 'Ooops' and then 'Honest Guv I was afeard o' my life'

Ivan wrote:
James Hanratty? Hardly a case of “beyond all reasonable doubt”?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wrongly-hanged-hanratty-is-found-innocent-1285402.html

The Independent article on Hanratty was interesting but in the end did they actually pardon him? I must look this up when I have time BUT as you will understand from my interest in DNA fingerprinting, I seem to recall that at a hearing for a pardon they had tested some clothes for DNA and found Hanratty's DNA. Now the 'defence' argues for cross contamination for what seemed good reason however the damning thing was that ONLY Hanratty's DNA had been found. That really does not sit with cross contamination.

I know you hate the daily mail but this article is actually rather good. In spite of the title "DNA tests show Hanratty was guilty" it doesn't really come to that conclusion at all!

I also found this one from the independent. New DNA tests show Hanratty may have been guilty after all which is probably a bit more measured.

I only supply this for interest. Capital punishment as you clearly express is simply repugnant to any decent human being.

I think Corbyn has made a terrible error with his comments regarding 'shoot to kill'. In the context of terrorists roaming British streets gunning innocent people down, it is a bizarre statement from Corbyn; and I'm afraid is one that will drastically weaken his, and Labour's, chances at the next election.

The Labour MPs that are talking to the right wing media are the same ones that have been against JC from the day of his election as leader of the Labour party.

As regards to his shoot to kill sickchip he has worries about the Brazillian man that was shot in London outside an underground station, not unless some Labour MPs do not care who gets shot on the streets of London. I do not think JC meant not to shoot those that where on the streets of Paris over the week-end.

We all understand what his principles are, but politicians have to be realistic and pragmatic to get elected - and this often means compromise.

He is a great idealist , but that is not enough to be a vote-winner. But then, in our heart of hearts we all knew that was the case,didn't we...?

Sorry PH but all this tells me is a few Labour MPs have had there nose put out of joint because there candidate for leadership did not get enough votes, I did not vote for JC for leader but I am willing to get behind him so that we can get rid of this Tory gov't and put a Labour gov't into power so that all the nastiness can be stopped against the poor of the UK.

So if the Labour MPs want another election for leader "I WILL NOT BE TAKING PART" but will be handing in my Labour party membership card

Redflag,

I do not think JC meant not to shoot those that where on the streets of Paris over the week-end.


That was the context he was asked the question in. If he does 'agree' it is right for police to 'shoot to kill' in such circumstances he should have been clear and specific about it. He gave a clumsy answer and appeared to be contrary for the sake of it. I know he has principles but, as Phil Hornby infers, real life won't always bend to suit principles, and tough decisions need to be made.

This demonstrates Corbyn has a tendency to cut his nose to spite his, and the Labour party's, face. He has a tendency to lose sight of the bigger picture.

I'm very disappointed in his poorly judged response here.

Not poorly judged but do you know the way the question was asked ?? The right wing media will do anything to bring down the likes of JC so that there Tax Cut provider can get back into power in 2020.

So if the Tories get back into power in 2020, I will lay that BLAME at the feet of those Labour MPs that have fought JC from the very beginning, instead of fighting him they should have started to talk to him from the time he became leader of the Labour party, but NO they decided to spit there dummy when JC won the leadership

Redflag,

In light of events, I imagine it is pretty clear why the question was being asked, and in what context.