Don't carry table legs in plastic bags

[Rave]

...because if you do, it's apparently not unlawful for the police to put a bullet in your head:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4539693.stm

You have been warned.

[Tomahawk]

What I can't believe that!.. They didn't even ask him, or wait for any reactions?.. And instead just shot him straight up without warning.. (thats impression I got from article!).. If soo that seems a tad wrong!..

And to say the family can't appeal when an innocent man was killed! Someone obviously wanted something done to him, as why would they tip off the police with false evidence.. Surely they should try and track that person and the phone call.

Seems very strange/wrong, and from the article it's hard to gain the whole picture..

[Rave]

Yeah, the article isn't very illuminating TBH. According to a Private Eye I read a few months ago the officers demonstrably didn't tell the truth at a previous inquest, they claimed that he turned around before they shot him whereas ballistics evidence showed that they in fact shot him from behind. I think refusing the family the right to appeal reeks of a cover up TBH, I can foresee a lot of protest about this.

[Allen]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3974461.stm

Apparantly, he held up the table leg as though it was a gun, like in a boxer's stance, and the police officer feared he was looking down the barrel of a gun. Why would someone carrying a wooden table leg hold it up like that?

Then again, I suppose it's the police's word against nobody. But why would they kill him without true fear they were going to be shot themselves?

[Rave]

That's what the police say, yes. Shame that's not what actually happened:

http://www.sportsmansassociation.org...anley_case.htm

[Allen]

That's what the police say, yes. Shame that's not what actually happened:

http://www.sportsmansassociation.org...anley_case.htm

But how do you know that that's true?

[Rave]

I read a seperate but almost identical account in the Private Eye, for a start. And here's the Guardian's write up from a few months ago:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gun/Story/...345557,00.html

[iranu]

A perfect example for not routinely arming ordinary Police officers as discussed in another thread.

[rajagra]

A perfect example for not routinely arming ordinary Police officers as discussed in another thread.

No, but perhaps a good example why armed officers should be fitted with video cameras recording everything that happens. That way, they need not fear being accused of unlawful killing when all they have done is perform their duties and defended themselves from someone behaving aggressively with a suspected firearm.

If I was a policeman and expected to be accused of unlawful killing after doing my job, and knew I'd be treated as guilty until proven innocent, then I would damn well refuse to carry firearms. When there was an unofficial strike by more than 100 members of SO19, were you surprised? I certainly wasn't, and I supported them 100%.

The bottom line is, if we need armed officers to deal with specific incidents (and we do), we should not assume they are guilty then place an unreasonable burden of proof on them to prove otherwise.

And that was exactly what the original unlawful killing verdict did. They simply chose not to believe the officers. Such a verdict is incompatible with having armed police. Think about it.

[Rave]

They simply chose not to believe the officers.

They chose to not believe them because the forensic evidence directly contradicted their assertion that Harry Stanley pointed the table leg at them as if it was firearm.

He was shot in the back. Their version of events simply could not have been true. Those are the undisputed facts of the case.

[Flibb]

The guardian site contradicts the the first site as to where he was shot.
1st site says in the back of the head.
2nd site says in the side of the head.

[Rave]

Neither say front of the head....which if he was pointing a gun directly at them, it'd pretty much have to be?

[Flibb]

You premis would be correct if the 2 police officers were standing directly next to each other, if they were not then it fails.

If you read the BBC website it was Pc Fagan that stated he stared down the barrel of what he thought was a gun and then opened fire (hitting victim in the hand), this was followed by Insp Sharman shooting him in the head.
If they were standing apart it would explain why the head shot came from the side.

Virtually no evidence is available to us other than a few contradictory websites, and people jump to conclussions as to what happened. TBH I dont know how close they were to each other, how far away the victim was, where the bullet entered his head, or what was said. Then again neither does anybody else posting in this thread.

[Rave]

No mention is made of how close the police were standing to each other when the shooting occured. The killing shot is ment to have been made after the first shot hit the victim in the hand, if they were standing apart it would explain why the head shot came from the side.

Yeah, so they'd shot him in the hand already....why was it necessary to blow his brains out exactly?

Virtually no evidence is available other than a few contradictory websites

Wrong. Home office forensic evidence was presented at the inquest to show that he was shot from behind. You can argue all you like about what was said, but you cannot argue that they didn't shoot him in the back, because they did. End of story.

Edit: the point of this is that the armed coppers seemed to believe that they were in danger, so they shot him, and that's apperently fine. I personally say that it's not fine, because those coppers chose to pick up a gun, whereas Harry Stanley had no reason to believe that picking up a table leg would place him in mortal danger. He was no danger to anyone, and yet he died brutally, because a couple of cops with guns and body armour decided that he was a critical threat to them because he was carrying a long pointy object. The logical conclusion is that if my Mum were to phone me up tomorrow and ask to borrow a broom from me, I should say no because to carry it the 1/2 mile to her house would make me a criminal suspect worthy of instant death.

[rajagra]

They chose to not believe them because the forensic evidence directly contradicted their assertion that Harry Stanley pointed the table leg at them as if it was firearm.

He was shot in the back. Their version of events simply could not have been true. Those are the undisputed facts of the case.

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.

The fact that all the police version of events doesn't fully explain the forensic evidence, proves very little. People's recollections of events are always unreliable. This has been proven time and time again. It's why identity parades have to be handled so carefully. And the police are not immune to this fallability.

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. Only an idiot would accept the job under those conditions. And nobody wants idiots in that particular job, do we?

[Flibb]

Both websites quote forensic evidence, and they say different things. Which is correct back or side? Have you seen the report or just what has been quoted in these websites that cant agree what the foresic evidence said.

As soon as the first officer fired the second would follow, and they would both have been trying to kill him. Thats what they are trained to do, its also home office procedure. The 2nd officer wouldnt have waited to see if the first round hit, he would be trained to shoot as soon as he heard a shot.