Don't carry table legs in plastic bags

[Rave]

Could he not have turned around after he waved the table leg around aggressively? Perhaps just as he realised he was mouthing off at armed officers and was about to get shot?

Of course he could have.

They claimed he was pointing the table leg at them. Unless he was supposedly attempting a Desperado style turn and shoot (which the fact that he's had surgery for cancer a week beforehand makes unlikely) they've basically got to be lying....unless the police have bullets that can do a 90 degree change of direction in mid air?

The fact that all the police version of events doesn't fully explain the forensic evidence, proves very little.

Actually it explains that their version of events is entirely untrue. Unless the aforementioned 90 degree direction changing bullets exist, he couldn't have been pointing the table leg at them.

People's recollections of events are always unreliable. This has been proven time and time again.

Yes...the recollections of the police officers in this case has been proven tp have been unreliable. They claim he was a threat to them, the forensic evidence proves they shot him in the back or side.

If society demands an account of events so detailed that it "proves" the police had reason to be in fear, and then expects that account to be 100% accurate and in accord with the minutiae of forensic evidence, then society is deluding itself.

It is wrong to treat armed officers as guilty until proven innocent.

It is also wrong to treat oficers who have killed a member of the public who was provably no harm to anyone as innocent. An innocent man had his life cut short by the people who were employed with his tax money to protect him. Dunno where you live mate, but I'm a Londoner, and I think I have a legitimate right to be concerned and angry about the fact that armed men are apparently allowed to roam the streets killing at will with no fear of comeback.

[rajagra]

So Rave, what burden of proof do you think is reasonable to be placed upon armed police? Would you yourself accept the job under the conditions that you think should be imposed? Or do you think we can make do without armed police?

I'm a Londoner too, and I think I have a legitimate right to be concerned and angry about the fact that armed men are apparently allowed to roam the streets killing at will with no fear of comeback. They're called criminals, and we need armed police to protect us from them.

[Allen]

Rave, the guy was shot twice, right? First in the hand, then in the head. Now I'm not entirely sure why they needed to fire the second shot, but they obviously still felt threatened. Could it not be possible that after being shot in the hand, the guy turned his head in shock or pain, or turning away like you would when you think you're about to be hit in the face? I'm pretty sure most people have done that.

Personally, I think they need to find the idiot who reported him to the police for carrying what looked like a shotgun. Either it was setup, or the guys a numpty. Saying that, if the police responded to a call like that, they should've treated the situation differently. But then, how do any of us know how we'd react in a situation like that? You're told a guy has a possible shotgun, you approach him, and he raises it to you. Wouldn't you not fear your life? Would you not have tried to take him down to prevent your life being taken?

Hindsight is all very well, but you can't say you wouldn't have done the same, in the same situation! And prosecuting police for trying to save their lives and taking down a potential armed suspect is not the right thing to do.

Simple answer. If you're carrying a table leg in a plastic bag and you're confronted by the police, drop the bag, don't raise it up and point it at them.

[Rave]

So Rave, what burden of proof do you think is reasonable to be placed upon armed police?

Well, they should be able to prove that the person they shot appeared to be a genuine threat to them. In this case the forensic evidence shows that he could not have pointed the table leg at them- in my opinion that menas that he could not have presented a threat.

Would you yourself accept the job under the conditions that you think should be imposed?

Of course I would. Those policemen volunteered for armed duty knowing that it could well place them in harm's way. What this verdict essentially says is that it's O.K. for them to pre-emptively shoot people who may, possibly, present a threat. I am of the opinion that the suspect should be given the opportunity to present a threat before being killed, since it is also entirely possible that they present no threat at all.

The police are there to protect the public, and in my opinion their duty to protect the public should come before their duty to protect themselves. I, personally, would be prepared to sign up on this basis.

Or do you think we can make do without armed police?

Well given the choice between having armed police who are allowed to kill suspect pre-emptively or not having them armed at all, I'm inclined to say get the army in when armed criminals need dealing with.

[Rave]

Personally, I think they need to find the idiot who reported him to the police for carrying what looked like a shotgun. Either it was setup, or the guys a numpty.

They know who he is. He stated categorically that he had personally seen that Harry Stanley was carrying a sawn off. This is provably a deliberate lie, so quite why he hasn't been prosecuted for his part in the killing is beyond me.

Simple answer. If you're carrying a table leg in a plastic bag and you're confronted by the police, drop the bag, don't raise it up and point it at them.

Quite. In this case that simply is not what happened.

[Allen]

Quite. In this case that simply is not what happened.

If it didn't happen, then why did the first officer say he thought he was staring down the barrel of a shotgun? Did he lay down on the floor next to him? If it wasn't pointed at the officer he couldn't have thought that, and therefore wouldn't have feared for his life and probably not shot the guy.

Unless of course you were there and saw the whole incident yourself?

[Rave]

If it didn't happen, then why did the first officer say he thought he was staring down the barrel of a shotgun?

I don't know why he said that, but as I've said over and over that's not what happened. The policemen's account is provably untrue.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/arti...346727,00.html

The jury were assisted by expert evidence from a Home Office forensic scientist who regularly advises the Metropolitan Police on ballistics issues. He examined the exit and entry wounds to Stanley's head and agreed that, in the light of their relative positions, it was impossible for Stanley to have been facing Fagan when Sharman fired his gun. Stanley was hit by a bullet which entered his head just above his left ear and exited from his front right temple, the exact reverse of what would be expected if Sharman's account was true. The ballistics expert also said that the direction of the wound to Stanley's left hand was impossible to reconcile with the officers' allegation that he was grasping his table leg as if supporting the forestock of a sawn-off shotgun as he directly faced Fagan.

[Allen]

This "ballistics expert" was not there, you were not there, how can you be so sure you are right? Why jump on the bandwagon and immediately accuse the police, people there to protect us, are in the wrong? Every single police story you find on the BBC you immediately oppose them. Why are you so against them?

Anyway, if this "expert" said the bullet entered his head above his left ear and exited through his right temple, that means he was shot from the left side of his head. OK, I'd understand that. But that doesn't prove he was facing the other way. I said before, have you never, ever winced or flinched and moved your head to the side, possibly to avoid being hit by something? I'd like to know how this "expert" can prove the guy wasn't holding the table leg like a gun just by the wound on his hand, he could have moved it, he could have been holding it with the other hand as they shot him, anything could've happened... and since the police were the only one's there, it's basically there word against everyone trying to prove they did something wrong, again.

It is very sad that he was innocent, it's also very sad that the guy who phoned the police was let off, but IMO, it's even worse that people try to prove the police wrong for trying to keep the streets safe and/or keep themselves alive.

[Rave]

This "ballistics expert" was not there, you were not there, how can you be so sure you are right?

I'm not going to carry on flogging a dead horse. The only time a jury has been free to reach a verdict, a majority of them concluded it was an unlawful killing. They had heard all the evidence from the two officers and the forensic evidence, and couldn't reconcile the two conflicting reports.

Why jump on the bandwagon and immediately accuse the police, people there to protect us, are in the wrong?

That sentence doesn't actually make sense?

Every single police story you find on the BBC you immediately oppose them.

Do you have monitoring software on both my PCs to record my every visit to the BBC website? Or is that a totally baseless and stupid allegation? Inquiring minds want to know.

[TiG]

I have to say rave if you read the article i don't see how you can convict anyone without eyewitness reports based on the following statement.

"The jurors were repeatedly told that an unlawful killing verdict required an exceptionally high standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) and, most vitally, that the officers had to be judged in the light of their own honestly held, albeit mistaken, view of the facts"

It seems to me the evidence is the case is unsufficient to have an exceptionally high standard of proof. The officers lying makes it even more difficult to prove this. Unless you can prove that they shot the guy in the back in cold blood then i'm afraid that is now way you could convict them imo..

For me as much as the forensic report makes them look as guilty as hell, by the letter of the law and the judge's guidance to the jury i see no way that they can be held accountable.

THe other thing that makes this whole thing worrying is WHY did someone report he was carrying a firearm...

TiG

[Allen]

OK, so perhaps a bit of an overstatement there, but we all know you seem to hate authority. You're against police stopping kids taking drugs in schools, you're against police being able to search you when they have the right if they think you're a suspect, you're against police dealing with drug addicts by taking them back near where they live and not acting like a taxi service and now you're against police dealing with potential criminals in a forceful manner.

OK, the guy was innocent and they were wrong, but they didn't know that at the time, in fact they probably feared for their lives. I can't see how you fail to admit that.

[Rave]

I have to say rave if you read the article i don't see how you can convict anyone without eyewitness reports based on the following statement.

"The jurors were repeatedly told that an unlawful killing verdict required an exceptionally high standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) and, most vitally, that the officers had to be judged in the light of their own honestly held, albeit mistaken, view of the facts"

It seems to me the evidence is the case is unsufficient to have an exceptionally high standard of proof. The officers lying makes it even more difficult to prove this. Unless you can prove that they shot the guy in the back in cold blood then i'm afraid that is now way you could convict them imo..

I have not proposed that they be tried for the killing- mainly because I don't see that it would serve any purpose. The point of this thread is that I do believe that Harry Stanley was unlawfully killed, and I'm disgusted that a high court judge has the power to overturn a verdict reached by twelve citizens on a jury and then refuse to allow any further inquests.

[Auran]

A couple of points;

1. The forensics don't disprove the police statement that the suspect pointed a table leg at them. Merely that when he was shot in the side / back of head that he wasn't facing them.

2. No matter the situation -"Innocent until proven guilty" anything else is a dangerous precedent

3. Police marksmen aren't out to shoot people for the fun of it, I know someone who used to be one and he still lives with the fact that he actually shot someone (they survived). To them it is a last resort when they are in fear of their life and that of other passers by etc.

4. As the level of violent crime in this country keeps rising so the level of fear associated with this (even among professionals) will rise, and so the number of incidents like this will also rise. What is important is that the police continually review their procedures in an attempt to minimise this.

5. I would rather one innocent man shot due to action than one or more due to inaction on the part of the police. (Yes I'd be angry if it was someone I knew - but I'd be more angry in the second case)

[ywouldi]

As far as I am aware the bloke was known to the police as someone who had a violent past and a criminal record. Apparently it was quite likely that he could have had a gun, he was also bragging to his mates down the pub that the leg was a gun. And also, why on earth would anyone carry a table leg? Picking it after having it fixed?!?! How exactly does a table leg get fixed? Bollocks, he had it to be used in the same manner as a baseball may have been used in certain situations!

Ben

[Rave]

As far as I am aware the bloke was known to the police as someone who had a violent past and a criminal record.

What you know is wrong then. His last conviction was in 1968, his convictions were spent and the police who stopped him would have known nothing of them.

Apparently it was quite likely that he could have had a gun, he was also bragging to his mates down the pub that the leg was a gun.

Google mate. Heard of it? It's a useful way of checking your facts before you post a load of totally incorrect rubbish on a forum.

And also, why on earth would anyone carry a table leg? Picking it after having it fixed?!?! How exactly does a table leg get fixed? Bollocks, he had it to be used in the same manner as a baseball may have been used in certain situations!

How would a table leg be fixed? Erm....glue? Wood screws? Like I say, check your facts.

[Kumagoro]

similar story.

I saw a video where a black policeman (american) shoots this black teenage lad who is just standing their. The officer was with another white officer who didnt have a gun out as far as i remember. The lad was just standing their with a plastic bag not moving, obviously scared cackless, with this policeman pointing a gun at him less then a metre away. then the policeman suddenly shoots him dead.

They (the police) said that he was about to pull a knife out of the bag but he didnt even more (although they kept saying get down on the floor)

i tried searching for it but their are 100's of similar cases.