ordnance Posted January 16, 2014 Report Share Posted January 16, 2014 I see another officer won't be charged after he shot an unarmed man. This time they are not even trying to say that he was armed. Prosecutors decided the marksman who killed Mr Grainger should not face charges for murder, manslaughter or misconduct in public office because a jury would be likely to accept that he believed his actions were necessary. The CPS said: "In the circumstances of this case, our assessment of the evidence is that a jury would accept that the officer did believe his actions were necessary and that the level of force used in response to the threat as he perceived it to be was proportionate. Chief Constable faces health and safety charge over fatal shooting ...www.telegraph.co.uk › News › UK News › Crime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted January 16, 2014 Report Share Posted January 16, 2014 The family of the shot man said on the news tonight they are considering a civil prosecution against the firearms officer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted January 16, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 16, 2014 The family of the shot man said on the news tonight they are considering a civil prosecution against the firearms officer. I think the real reason that they are hesitant to prosecute, is that they are scared that the firearms officers will throw their toys out of the pram, as they have threatened to do in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted January 16, 2014 Report Share Posted January 16, 2014 The death of anyone by mistake is regrettable in the extreme, but this is the reason the vast majority of police will not be prosecuted if it subsequently transpires a mistake has been made. ................"The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decided the marksman who killed Mr Grainger should not face charges for murder or manslaughter because a jury would be likely to accept that he believed his actions were necessary. "In the circumstances of this case, our assessment of the evidence is that a jury would accept that the officer did believe his actions were necessary and that the level of force used in response to the threat as he perceived it to be was proportionate," ........................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paddy Galore! Posted January 16, 2014 Report Share Posted January 16, 2014 I think the real reason that they are hesitant to prosecute, is that they are scared that the firearms officers will throw their toys out of the pram, as they have threatened to do in the past. throw their toys out? they should learn to play nicely then, and not go shooting unarmed men just because they can. just my opinion but i think in circumstances like this one then the officer should be held accountable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted January 16, 2014 Report Share Posted January 16, 2014 (edited) The death of anyone by mistake is regrettable in the extreme, but this is the reason the vast majority of police will not be prosecuted if it subsequently transpires a mistake has been made. ................"The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decided the marksman who killed Mr Grainger should not face charges for murder or manslaughter because a jury would be likely to accept that he believed his actions were necessary. "In the circumstances of this case, our assessment of the evidence is that a jury would accept that the officer did believe his actions were necessary and that the level of force used in response to the threat as he perceived it to be was proportionate," ........................ The cps are not exactly wrapped in glory about decisions to prosecute or not,it seems a lot of the time it is a lottery. The family can bring a civil case and ask questions that may shed light on the whole operation not just the killing,it may be an interesting sight when commanders are called to give evidence. Edited January 16, 2014 by welsh1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neillfrbs Posted January 16, 2014 Report Share Posted January 16, 2014 if he was a serving soldier he would be up before the beak ,and sentenced for murder makes me sick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartynGT4 Posted January 16, 2014 Report Share Posted January 16, 2014 What amazes me is the fact that they thought it necessary to deploy armed police because the guy was (incorrectIy) suspected of having stolen a memory stick containing the names of informants. Whilst I can understand why they'd want to keep such a thing out of criminals hands, I can't for the life of me understand why they felt that would justify an armed response. It's not like the guy was on a rampage with a sawn off! if he was a serving soldier he would be up before the beak ,and sentenced for murder makes me sick. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 if he was a serving soldier he would be up before the beak ,and sentenced for murder makes me sick. No he wouldn't unless it was deliberate, in this case was it intentional or not and do we want anyone carrying firearms who could potentially make a mistake? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toontastic Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 if he was a serving soldier he would be up before the beak ,and sentenced for murder makes me sick. Can you give some examples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 So, once the police have 'information' that someone is armed, then shooting someone unarmed (and or nowhere near any firearm) automatically becomes ok and justified. Blimey. That's a worry and a very low hurdle to getting shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sishyplops Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 throw their toys out? they should learn to play nicely then, and not go shooting unarmed men just because they can. just my opinion but i think in circumstances like this one then the officer should be held accountable. do you really believe the decision to take someones life is based on just because they can? if faced with a similar situation what would any of us do, these guys work in very very serious life changing situations were sometimes split second decisions have to be made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m3vert Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 Oh and the Pigeon Watch massif are ready to decide they know more and are better qualified than those "in the know, with the evidence" Here we go again!,! BORING! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 Oh and the Pigeon Watch massif are ready to decide they know more and are better qualified than those "in the know, with the evidence" Here we go again!,! BORING! Nice of you to give an input into the debate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m3vert Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 About as helpful as some of the responses that will given by the usual suspects! Heres my prediction. Some will try and debate, others will shout them down about Police abusing their powers, some will try to debate, others will shout louder, Police will be bashed, mods will lock topic ;-) Let's see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 Oh and the Pigeon Watch massif are ready to decide they know more and are better qualified than those "in the know, with the evidence" Here we go again!,! BORING! Sorry, its not boring but clearly becoming v important. I would be very tempted to look closely at what he was asked to do, what information he had been given, what his 'terms of engagement' were and the precise circumstances of the shooting. There can be no substitute for stopping an unarmed man, even if its involving several cars/units. If this policeman was told the suspect was armed, then he was 'set-up', although, even then, he should have erred on the side of caution as he must have been in a 'dominant position' before he shot. The whole system of armed response needs sorting before some innocent but careless shooter of pigeons gets shot. I have had the red dot treatment and I now believe its safety off and a careless move? I am beginning to share Munglers concerns over this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 About as helpful as some of the responses that will given by the usual suspects! Heres my prediction. Some will try and debate, others will shout them down about Police abusing their powers, some will try to debate, others will shout louder, Police will be bashed, mods will lock topic ;-) Let's see. And that is the way of a lot of the debates on here,getting locked is usually down to someone calling someone else daft names. But your post insinuated that people were debating without knowing all the facts and that to do so was boring, yet the majority of posts you have started because you thought they were important enough to bring to the forums attention were subjects that you did not have the full facts,apart from what you have read,what difference between them and this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m3vert Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 The issue I have is that some on here clearly think they know more info than everyone else, some in fact seem to know more than prosecutors! Impressive for keyboard lawyers. On that I will bail out! Bet my input will be missed lol have fun and play nice children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 The issue I have is that some on here clearly think they know more info than everyone else, some in fact seem to know more than prosecutors! Impressive for keyboard lawyers. On that I will bail out! Bet my input will be missed lol have fun and play nice children. That is always the case and what leads to debate, I actually take your point and see where you are coming from. It is very easy to be clever after the event, but if rabbits shot back a lot of peoples views on here would be different. We are talking about the real world where split second decisions can mean life or death. The red mist comes up with many people aiming at a rabbit or fox etc, few if any here can imagine the pressure on a Firearms officer when in an active situation. Nobody is perfect, we all make mistakes, it is very unfortunate, to say the least, that when a firearms officer makes a mistake he may well kill someone. If he took reasonable care and genuinely believed there was an immediate threat what is he to do? There are stringent background rules relating to Police/firearms, but there is seldom time to complete a full risk assessment and method statement when confronted by a potentially lethal situation. Let me be clear here, I am taking impartial ground and really asking, what is he meant to do, to quick and perhaps an innocent person is dead, too slow and perhaps police or innocent bystanders are dead!? They are damned if the do and damned if they don't! ...and the solution is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 The point of this thread is that the man who was shot posed no threat,and the intel fed down through the system seems to be at fault,and as much as i appreciate the pressure the armed officer is in and the split second decision he has to make, in this instance the shot man was in his car and no weapon was found,how can the officer justify his life was in danger or even that he perceived his life was in danger? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 The point of this thread is that the man who was shot posed no threat,and the intel fed down through the system seems to be at fault,and as much as i appreciate the pressure the armed officer is in and the split second decision he has to make, in this instance the shot man was in his car and no weapon was found,how can the officer justify his life was in danger or even that he perceived his life was in danger? We don't know, but apparently he has, perhaps it was something to do with the information he had, and/or the actions of the suspect at that moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 We don't know, but apparently he has, perhaps it was something to do with the information he had, and/or the actions of the suspect at that moment. I agree with part of what you are saying,but the actions of the shot man cannot justify him being shot as he had no weapon and therefore posed no risk to life,even if he had come out of the car screaming and shouting there would be no justification in shooting him unless he posed a risk to life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 (edited) I agree with part of what you are saying,but the actions of the shot man cannot justify him being shot as he had no weapon and therefore posed no risk to life,even if he had come out of the car screaming and shouting there would be no justification in shooting him unless he posed a risk to life. We do not know the circumstances, please be clear here, I am not defending the police. Hypothetically, Armed response were told he is known to carry a handgun in the glove box, he goes for the glove box having been told clearly and loudly several times by the police not to move. At what point do/don't you pull the trigger, after he gets a gun out and starts shooting at people or immediately before he has a chance to reach a perceived threat? The Firearms Officer has justified his actions to the CPS and they have accepted them, I am not for one second saying they are right, simply that they probably know a little more detail than we do! Edited January 17, 2014 by Dekers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 You pull the trigger when your life or the life of others is in imminent danger,in your hypothetical situation it would be an unlawful killing,as he had no weapon in his hand and the police cannot justify it by using the "i thought there might be a gun in the glovebox" line. To have shot him the officer must have had a clear view of the dead man,so would have been able to see him reach into a glovebox and hold on his hand a weapon,if he did not have a clear view then he should not shoot. And it then stands to reason that the officer having a clear view of the dead man shot him knowing he had no weapon. It will be interesting when the family take a civil prosecution out and the facts are shown in a court of law,we will then be able to see all the facts,and also why the officer shot this man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 You pull the trigger when your life or the life of others is in imminent danger,in your hypothetical situation it would be an unlawful killing,as he had no weapon in his hand and the police cannot justify it by using the "i thought there might be a gun in the glovebox" line. To have shot him the officer must have had a clear view of the dead man,so would have been able to see him reach into a glovebox and hold on his hand a weapon,if he did not have a clear view then he should not shoot. And it then stands to reason that the officer having a clear view of the dead man shot him knowing he had no weapon. It will be interesting when the family take a civil prosecution out and the facts are shown in a court of law,we will then be able to see all the facts,and also why the officer shot this man. It was hypothetical, what if he actually told the police he had a gun in the glove box and was going to get it out and shoot everyone, what if he made a sharp, quick, aggressive move to the glove box? We don't know, all we know is the CPS are satisfied with his explanation, anything else is speculation! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts