London shooting
-
I'm sure some of Anne Frank's nieghbors thought it all a terrible terrible mistake too... "Art doesn't want to be familiar. It wants to astonish us. Or, in some cases, to enrage us. It wants to move us. To touch us. Not accommodate us, make us comfortable." -- Jamake Highwater Toasty0.com My Grandkids
Sorry, I don't understand the analogy. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
Well, fine, I've got news for you pal - it is us vs them, whether you like it or not. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
(talk about your strawman) So, what you are saying is that if we take any action at all to physically defend ourselves than we are causing ethinic cleansing? Were we guilty of ethnic cleansing when fighting the Germans? The Japanese? That was an us or them situation also. It turned out alright. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
(talk about your strawman) So, what you are saying is that if we take any action at all to physically defend ourselves than we are causing ethinic cleansing? Were we guilty of ethnic cleansing when fighting the Germans? The Japanese? That was an us or them situation also. It turned out alright. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
I made no reference to defence of any type. My point is that if you classify "all of them" to be the enemy then you are implying that you want to kill all Muslims which is in my opinion ethnic cleansing. You (its not we, I am not American) were not guilty of ethnic cleansing when fighting the Germans or the Japanese because there was never a desire to destroy them as a whole. Germany and Japan still exist as do German and Japanese people. And thank god too because I love listening to Ramstien (German band) on my Ipod (electronic device with lots of components from Japan).
-
That will, if required, come in due course. We have only had two mistaken fatal shootings in the UK in the past decade, so prosecutions are understandably going to be rare, but in the case of Mr. Stanley the officers where charged (though later overturned, IMO rightly based on the information they were given).
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (video)
David Wulff wrote: We have only had two mistaken fatal shootings in the UK in the past decade, so prosecutions are understandably going to be rare http://www.freedomtocare.org/page328.htm[^] John Carson "The English language, complete with irony, satire, and sarcasm, has survived for centuries wihout smileys. Only the new crop of modern computer geeks finds it impossible to detect a joke that is not Clearly Labelled as such." Ray Shea
-
I made no reference to defence of any type. My point is that if you classify "all of them" to be the enemy then you are implying that you want to kill all Muslims which is in my opinion ethnic cleansing. You (its not we, I am not American) were not guilty of ethnic cleansing when fighting the Germans or the Japanese because there was never a desire to destroy them as a whole. Germany and Japan still exist as do German and Japanese people. And thank god too because I love listening to Ramstien (German band) on my Ipod (electronic device with lots of components from Japan).
Josh Gray wrote: I made no reference to defence of any type. My point is that if you classify "all of them" to be the enemy then you are implying that you want to kill all Muslims which is in my opinion ethnic cleansing. My original post, which you cited, clearly referred to "islamic terrorism", not to Islam itself. I have no concerns at all about Islam except to the extent that it is currently producing some large scale terrorism overtly commited to the destruction of western civilization. That isn't my fault, it is the terrorists fault. Just as with Germany and Japan, we have to insist on unconditional surrender of the terrorists. And just as with Germany and Japan, we have to do what ever it takes to achieve that. Screw political correctness. Josh Gray wrote: ) on my Ipod (electronic device with lots of components from Japan). Yeah, I have one of those also, except, as my son observed, I'm probably the only person on the planet who has an IPod loaded with music from the 60's. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
Josh Gray wrote: I made no reference to defence of any type. My point is that if you classify "all of them" to be the enemy then you are implying that you want to kill all Muslims which is in my opinion ethnic cleansing. My original post, which you cited, clearly referred to "islamic terrorism", not to Islam itself. I have no concerns at all about Islam except to the extent that it is currently producing some large scale terrorism overtly commited to the destruction of western civilization. That isn't my fault, it is the terrorists fault. Just as with Germany and Japan, we have to insist on unconditional surrender of the terrorists. And just as with Germany and Japan, we have to do what ever it takes to achieve that. Screw political correctness. Josh Gray wrote: ) on my Ipod (electronic device with lots of components from Japan). Yeah, I have one of those also, except, as my son observed, I'm probably the only person on the planet who has an IPod loaded with music from the 60's. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
I have the best of Bob Dylan and some Neil Young, Credence and a few other oldies. Good music is good music no matter when it was written. You make some valid points. Stan Shannon wrote: unconditional surrender of the terrorists That sounds good but what does it really mean? I cant imagine Osama signing a Treaty of Versaille or anything like that. I think the fundamental issues here are very different to WWII and a direct comparison is not very useful.
-
fakefur wrote: But the cop in question WAS NOT being threatened. His life and the lives of other people on the train were being threatened in his eyes, because he thought that the man was a terrorist. Wrongly as it turned out, but that is what he thought, so he had a duty of care to protect himself and the general public. Intelligence gathering failures and the officer having a wizz :doh: as the man left the house seem to have contributed to them misidentifying him as a terrorist, but on the information the armed officers received, that he *was* a terrorist, I can't see that they had much choice.
-
David Wulff wrote: We have only had two mistaken fatal shootings in the UK in the past decade, so prosecutions are understandably going to be rare http://www.freedomtocare.org/page328.htm[^] John Carson "The English language, complete with irony, satire, and sarcasm, has survived for centuries wihout smileys. Only the new crop of modern computer geeks finds it impossible to detect a joke that is not Clearly Labelled as such." Ray Shea
I was referring only to fatalities, and it seems only the Met police force, but we are still looking at (with this case) 9 mistaken shootings of civilians out of a reported approx. 15,000 operations. Worth pointing out - all of the recomendations discussed there that are appropriate at this time in the investigation and events after the shooting have been followed in this specific case. The exception is the one about staffing police authorities, but with independant organisations like the IPCC involved I'm not convinced that is necessary. Looking to the prosecution record, which is probably something you wanted to bring up, if a case goes to the High Court twice and the officers involved are acquitted of unlawful killing, then that should be good enough for everyone to accept. Most civilians aren't offered that chance without years of campaigning from their prison cells. Talk about holding the police to the same standards!
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (video)
-
I was referring only to fatalities, and it seems only the Met police force, but we are still looking at (with this case) 9 mistaken shootings of civilians out of a reported approx. 15,000 operations. Worth pointing out - all of the recomendations discussed there that are appropriate at this time in the investigation and events after the shooting have been followed in this specific case. The exception is the one about staffing police authorities, but with independant organisations like the IPCC involved I'm not convinced that is necessary. Looking to the prosecution record, which is probably something you wanted to bring up, if a case goes to the High Court twice and the officers involved are acquitted of unlawful killing, then that should be good enough for everyone to accept. Most civilians aren't offered that chance without years of campaigning from their prison cells. Talk about holding the police to the same standards!
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (video)
I wasn't advocating any particular policies. I linked to the article to make two points: 1. Shootings of people by police aren't all that uncommon. 2. The police are never found guilty of a criminal offence. Regarding 2., one interpretation is that the police never do shoot anyone in circumstances that would justify a criminal conviction. All the same, these cases usually involve deciding who to believe. It seems that over the period referred to in the article the police were always believed. This, I think, justifies my claim that: "When police are involved, my strong impression is that they very much get the benefit of the doubt." At the very least, you would have to say that over the relevant period there is no evidence that the courts unfairly convict police (as a matter of logic, you can't unfairly convict if you don't convict at all). You may recall the context of my quoted remark: my contention that police were not justified in refusing to carry weapons because it was found that police had a case to answer in connection with one incident. The point here is that if the record shows no evidence of the courts unfairly convicting police, then a dummy spit over someone getting charged ("members of the Met's armed force handed in their weapons stating that they were unable to perform the roles they were employed to carry out") is a total overreaction, indicative of a belief that the police are above the law. The conduct was completely unprofessional and indefensible. John Carson "The English language, complete with irony, satire, and sarcasm, has survived for centuries wihout smileys. Only the new crop of modern computer geeks finds it impossible to detect a joke that is not Clearly Labelled as such." Ray Shea
-
I wasn't advocating any particular policies. I linked to the article to make two points: 1. Shootings of people by police aren't all that uncommon. 2. The police are never found guilty of a criminal offence. Regarding 2., one interpretation is that the police never do shoot anyone in circumstances that would justify a criminal conviction. All the same, these cases usually involve deciding who to believe. It seems that over the period referred to in the article the police were always believed. This, I think, justifies my claim that: "When police are involved, my strong impression is that they very much get the benefit of the doubt." At the very least, you would have to say that over the relevant period there is no evidence that the courts unfairly convict police (as a matter of logic, you can't unfairly convict if you don't convict at all). You may recall the context of my quoted remark: my contention that police were not justified in refusing to carry weapons because it was found that police had a case to answer in connection with one incident. The point here is that if the record shows no evidence of the courts unfairly convicting police, then a dummy spit over someone getting charged ("members of the Met's armed force handed in their weapons stating that they were unable to perform the roles they were employed to carry out") is a total overreaction, indicative of a belief that the police are above the law. The conduct was completely unprofessional and indefensible. John Carson "The English language, complete with irony, satire, and sarcasm, has survived for centuries wihout smileys. Only the new crop of modern computer geeks finds it impossible to detect a joke that is not Clearly Labelled as such." Ray Shea
John Carson wrote: Shootings of people by police aren't all that uncommon. I didn't mean to imply that they were, merely that mistaken shootings resulting in fatalities are extremely rare. I've got a feeling we are talking about distinctly different things here, i.e. you are talking about any action involved an armed police response and I am only talking about the very tip of it where fatal accidents have happened. John Carson wrote: The police are never found guilty of a criminal offence. With regards to mistaken shootings resulting in fatalities, then no, there are no standing charges, but there have been charges of unlawful killing raised agaisnt officers in the courts. In general, police officers are often found guilty of criminal offenses, be it fraud, assault, theft, etc. We have had some such prosecutions in my local force over the past year, there was one officer charged for fraud couldn't have been that long ago because I can remember seeing the story in the local paper. So it does happen, but given the infrequency of armed accidents it doesn't happen for them very often. Unless it results in a death then we don't even hear about them, and it only really gets national coverage if it was a policeman being shot or an innocent victim killed (by police or a criminal). John Carson wrote: if the record shows no evidence of the courts unfairly convicting police, then a dummy spit over someone getting charged ("members of the Met's armed force handed in their weapons stating that they were unable to perform the roles they were employed to carry out") is a total overreaction At the time those officers handed in their weapons, their colleagues had been charged with unlawful killing - that is why they handed in their weapons. It was later overturned in the High Court, but the action the other officers took was as a result of that verdict of unlawful killing. (A criminal charge.)
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (video)
-
John Carson wrote: Shootings of people by police aren't all that uncommon. I didn't mean to imply that they were, merely that mistaken shootings resulting in fatalities are extremely rare. I've got a feeling we are talking about distinctly different things here, i.e. you are talking about any action involved an armed police response and I am only talking about the very tip of it where fatal accidents have happened. John Carson wrote: The police are never found guilty of a criminal offence. With regards to mistaken shootings resulting in fatalities, then no, there are no standing charges, but there have been charges of unlawful killing raised agaisnt officers in the courts. In general, police officers are often found guilty of criminal offenses, be it fraud, assault, theft, etc. We have had some such prosecutions in my local force over the past year, there was one officer charged for fraud couldn't have been that long ago because I can remember seeing the story in the local paper. So it does happen, but given the infrequency of armed accidents it doesn't happen for them very often. Unless it results in a death then we don't even hear about them, and it only really gets national coverage if it was a policeman being shot or an innocent victim killed (by police or a criminal). John Carson wrote: if the record shows no evidence of the courts unfairly convicting police, then a dummy spit over someone getting charged ("members of the Met's armed force handed in their weapons stating that they were unable to perform the roles they were employed to carry out") is a total overreaction At the time those officers handed in their weapons, their colleagues had been charged with unlawful killing - that is why they handed in their weapons. It was later overturned in the High Court, but the action the other officers took was as a result of that verdict of unlawful killing. (A criminal charge.)
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (video)
David Wulff wrote: At the time those officers handed in their weapons, their colleagues had been charged with unlawful killing - that is why they handed in their weapons. It was later overturned in the High Court, but the action the other officers took was as a result of that verdict of unlawful killing. (A criminal charge.) There was an inquest verdict (which, as I understand it, does not mean that the officers were actually convicted of anything; it simply opened the way for charging them) and the police reaction was outrageous. They are meant to enforce the law, not go on a partial strike when legal outcomes don't please them. John Carson "The English language, complete with irony, satire, and sarcasm, has survived for centuries wihout smileys. Only the new crop of modern computer geeks finds it impossible to detect a joke that is not Clearly Labelled as such." Ray Shea
-
David Wulff wrote: At the time those officers handed in their weapons, their colleagues had been charged with unlawful killing - that is why they handed in their weapons. It was later overturned in the High Court, but the action the other officers took was as a result of that verdict of unlawful killing. (A criminal charge.) There was an inquest verdict (which, as I understand it, does not mean that the officers were actually convicted of anything; it simply opened the way for charging them) and the police reaction was outrageous. They are meant to enforce the law, not go on a partial strike when legal outcomes don't please them. John Carson "The English language, complete with irony, satire, and sarcasm, has survived for centuries wihout smileys. Only the new crop of modern computer geeks finds it impossible to detect a joke that is not Clearly Labelled as such." Ray Shea
With Harry Stanley it has been round a couple of times now. The initial inquest was prevented from considering verdicts of unlawful killing by the coroner - not the police - but this was later overturned in the courts by his family and a hearing was held in which a jury returned a verdict of unlawful killing to the officers involved. That has since been quashed by the High Court, but at the time it was valid. The officers who handed in their weapons did so because that verdict prevented them from carrying out their roles in good faith, and they were not prepared to risk their lives and the lives of the public by having to consider which actions would result in less chance of prosecution, rather than which was the safest and involved less risk to human life. John Carson wrote: which, as I understand it, does not mean that the officers were actually convicted of anything; it simply opened the way for charging them That's not strictly true, in James Ashley's case (the guy in the article you linked to) formal charges were brought against 5 officers involved as a result of the inquest. They were found not guilty by the standard judicial rules. Ashley wasn't actually shot by a police officer but was killed by a ricocheting bullet, hence a lot of the initial confusion in reports over what had happened.
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (video)
-
With Harry Stanley it has been round a couple of times now. The initial inquest was prevented from considering verdicts of unlawful killing by the coroner - not the police - but this was later overturned in the courts by his family and a hearing was held in which a jury returned a verdict of unlawful killing to the officers involved. That has since been quashed by the High Court, but at the time it was valid. The officers who handed in their weapons did so because that verdict prevented them from carrying out their roles in good faith, and they were not prepared to risk their lives and the lives of the public by having to consider which actions would result in less chance of prosecution, rather than which was the safest and involved less risk to human life. John Carson wrote: which, as I understand it, does not mean that the officers were actually convicted of anything; it simply opened the way for charging them That's not strictly true, in James Ashley's case (the guy in the article you linked to) formal charges were brought against 5 officers involved as a result of the inquest. They were found not guilty by the standard judicial rules. Ashley wasn't actually shot by a police officer but was killed by a ricocheting bullet, hence a lot of the initial confusion in reports over what had happened.
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (video)
David Wulff wrote: The officers who handed in their weapons did so because that verdict prevented them from carrying out their roles in good faith, and they were not prepared to risk their lives and the lives of the public by having to consider which actions would result in less chance of prosecution, rather than which was the safest and involved less risk to human life. Translation. The officers considered that they should be above the law. Anyone who is not above the law does have to consider what actions expose them to prosecution. That is how the law works. John Carson "The English language, complete with irony, satire, and sarcasm, has survived for centuries wihout smileys. Only the new crop of modern computer geeks finds it impossible to detect a joke that is not Clearly Labelled as such." Ray Shea
-
David Wulff wrote: The officers who handed in their weapons did so because that verdict prevented them from carrying out their roles in good faith, and they were not prepared to risk their lives and the lives of the public by having to consider which actions would result in less chance of prosecution, rather than which was the safest and involved less risk to human life. Translation. The officers considered that they should be above the law. Anyone who is not above the law does have to consider what actions expose them to prosecution. That is how the law works. John Carson "The English language, complete with irony, satire, and sarcasm, has survived for centuries wihout smileys. Only the new crop of modern computer geeks finds it impossible to detect a joke that is not Clearly Labelled as such." Ray Shea
I disagree with your translation: they never believed they were above the law, they believed that they had specific exceptions, and carrying out their duties without fear of persecution so long as they are not negligent or criminal is one one those. If a civilian walked in to an armed bank robbery and shot one of the robbers because they presented a threat to other human life, ignoring the fact we can't carry guns over here, that civilian would be charged with either murder or manslaughter and face a guaranteed prison term. It has happened, fairly recently, with a violent burglar being shot by a licensed-shotgun-carrying farmer. We give our armed officers immunity to that guaranteed prosecution so long as they do not break the law. I stand by the comment I made yesterday that no sane person would take on a responsibility knowing that carrying it out would result in them being placed in prison. OT to this reply, but linked in to what has been talked about above, only today a police officer has been arrested on suspicion of murder. Police officers are not above the law. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/4165224.stm[^]
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (video)
-
I disagree with your translation: they never believed they were above the law, they believed that they had specific exceptions, and carrying out their duties without fear of persecution so long as they are not negligent or criminal is one one those. If a civilian walked in to an armed bank robbery and shot one of the robbers because they presented a threat to other human life, ignoring the fact we can't carry guns over here, that civilian would be charged with either murder or manslaughter and face a guaranteed prison term. It has happened, fairly recently, with a violent burglar being shot by a licensed-shotgun-carrying farmer. We give our armed officers immunity to that guaranteed prosecution so long as they do not break the law. I stand by the comment I made yesterday that no sane person would take on a responsibility knowing that carrying it out would result in them being placed in prison. OT to this reply, but linked in to what has been talked about above, only today a police officer has been arrested on suspicion of murder. Police officers are not above the law. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/4165224.stm[^]
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (video)
David Wulff wrote: I disagree with your translation: they never believed they were above the law, they believed that they had specific exceptions, and carrying out their duties without fear of persecution so long as they are not negligent or criminal is one one those. If a civilian walked in to an armed bank robbery and shot one of the robbers because they presented a threat to other human life, ignoring the fact we can't carry guns over here, that civilian would be charged with either murder or manslaughter and face a guaranteed prison term. It has happened, fairly recently, with a violent burglar being shot by a licensed-shotgun-carrying farmer. We give our armed officers immunity to that guaranteed prosecution so long as they do not break the law. This explanation strikes me as bizarre. The fact that the police were charged means that it was believed that there was a prima facie case that they did break the law. This judgement was later overturned, of course, but it was plainly never the case that the police were charged in spite of the fact that they obeyed the law. I also believe you are wrong that ordinary citizens cannot kill to protect life. http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/householders.html[^] John Carson "The English language, complete with irony, satire, and sarcasm, has survived for centuries wihout smileys. Only the new crop of modern computer geeks finds it impossible to detect a joke that is not Clearly Labelled as such." Ray Shea
-
I have the best of Bob Dylan and some Neil Young, Credence and a few other oldies. Good music is good music no matter when it was written. You make some valid points. Stan Shannon wrote: unconditional surrender of the terrorists That sounds good but what does it really mean? I cant imagine Osama signing a Treaty of Versaille or anything like that. I think the fundamental issues here are very different to WWII and a direct comparison is not very useful.
Josh Gray wrote: I have the best of Bob Dylan and some Neil Young, Credence and a few other oldies. Good music is good music no matter when it was written. What I like about the IPod is that it finally allowed me to get my collection of one hit wonders in one place. I was just setting here listening to Bubble Puppy's "Hot smoke and Sasafrass" thinking 'damn, they just don't make rock and roll like that no more.' Josh Gray wrote: That sounds good but what does it really mean? I cant imagine Osama signing a Treaty of Versaille or anything like that. I think the fundamental issues here are very different to WWII and a direct comparison is not very useful. I know it is not a very popular opnion, but to my mind you simple do not allow the terrorist to get away with this "stateless" status. You pick a state, and make it responsible. If that choice was wrong than you pick another, and another, until finally you get the right one. I realize that Islam itself is not to blame for this chaos, but if these governments in the middle-east are going to make Islamic law the primary basis of their form of government, and than if people are going to emerge from those very countries determined to attack and destroy westerners in the name of Islam, the very thing those governments are based on, than we are entirely within our rights to demand they take repsonsibility for the terrorism and to damn well do something about it - or we will. I am perfectly happy to listen to what ever legitimate complaints the Islamic world has about the west (and, yes, I think they have many legitimate complaints), but not while I am being attacked by those fighting in their name. As soon as they get all their dogs rounded up, we can talk. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
David Wulff wrote: I disagree with your translation: they never believed they were above the law, they believed that they had specific exceptions, and carrying out their duties without fear of persecution so long as they are not negligent or criminal is one one those. If a civilian walked in to an armed bank robbery and shot one of the robbers because they presented a threat to other human life, ignoring the fact we can't carry guns over here, that civilian would be charged with either murder or manslaughter and face a guaranteed prison term. It has happened, fairly recently, with a violent burglar being shot by a licensed-shotgun-carrying farmer. We give our armed officers immunity to that guaranteed prosecution so long as they do not break the law. This explanation strikes me as bizarre. The fact that the police were charged means that it was believed that there was a prima facie case that they did break the law. This judgement was later overturned, of course, but it was plainly never the case that the police were charged in spite of the fact that they obeyed the law. I also believe you are wrong that ordinary citizens cannot kill to protect life. http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/householders.html[^] John Carson "The English language, complete with irony, satire, and sarcasm, has survived for centuries wihout smileys. Only the new crop of modern computer geeks finds it impossible to detect a joke that is not Clearly Labelled as such." Ray Shea
John Carson wrote: it was plainly never the case that the police were charged in spite of the fact that they obeyed the law. The officers were charged with unlawful killing, a criminal charge. Regardless of the fact that was later overturned because they did not in fact break the law, that still stood as a criminal charge against them which, if it was not overturned, would have resulted in criminal prosecution the same as with any member of the public. The rules are really very clear: if you break the law you will be subject to standard judicial proceedings and prosecution by the crown, whether you are a police officer, a civilian, a member of parliment, the Queen's son, etc. The only time there is an exemption to this are if a soldier commits a crime under military juristiction, in which case it would be handled internally by a military court. John Carson wrote: I also believe you are wrong that ordinary citizens cannot kill to protect life Unfortunately, deliberate lethal force is not considered reasonable force, it is excessive and gratuitous force. So if you shoot someone and they lived, you're fine, but if you shoot someone and they die, you will go to jail for murder. That is a crucial difference.
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (video)
-
John Carson wrote: it was plainly never the case that the police were charged in spite of the fact that they obeyed the law. The officers were charged with unlawful killing, a criminal charge. Regardless of the fact that was later overturned because they did not in fact break the law, that still stood as a criminal charge against them which, if it was not overturned, would have resulted in criminal prosecution the same as with any member of the public. The rules are really very clear: if you break the law you will be subject to standard judicial proceedings and prosecution by the crown, whether you are a police officer, a civilian, a member of parliment, the Queen's son, etc. The only time there is an exemption to this are if a soldier commits a crime under military juristiction, in which case it would be handled internally by a military court. John Carson wrote: I also believe you are wrong that ordinary citizens cannot kill to protect life Unfortunately, deliberate lethal force is not considered reasonable force, it is excessive and gratuitous force. So if you shoot someone and they lived, you're fine, but if you shoot someone and they die, you will go to jail for murder. That is a crucial difference.
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (video)
David Wulff wrote: The officers were charged with unlawful killing, a criminal charge. Regardless of the fact that was later overturned because they did not in fact break the law, that still stood as a criminal charge against them which, if it was not overturned, would have resulted in criminal prosecution the same as with any member of the public. Of course. How does that contradict anything I have said? David Wulff wrote: Unfortunately, deliberate lethal force is not considered reasonable force, it is excessive and gratuitous force. So if you shoot someone and they lived, you're fine, but if you shoot someone and they die, you will go to jail for murder. Total nonsense. Read the last link I gave: If you have acted in reasonable self-defence, as described above, and the intruder dies you will still have acted lawfully. It surprises me that you can be so wrong on this. The law on these matters has been broadly the same for centuries. If you need to kill someone in order to prevent them killing, then "deliberate lethal force" is reasonable. Of course, whether you really did need to kill someone is a matter to be assessed in each case. Reading between the lines, it seems that you have a problem with this case by case approach and 1) want a blanket rule, 2) seem to believe that the existing law does involve blanket rules. John Carson "The English language, complete with irony, satire, and sarcasm, has survived for centuries wihout smileys. Only the new crop of modern computer geeks finds it impossible to detect a joke that is not Clearly Labelled as such." Ray Shea
-
David Wulff wrote: The officers were charged with unlawful killing, a criminal charge. Regardless of the fact that was later overturned because they did not in fact break the law, that still stood as a criminal charge against them which, if it was not overturned, would have resulted in criminal prosecution the same as with any member of the public. Of course. How does that contradict anything I have said? David Wulff wrote: Unfortunately, deliberate lethal force is not considered reasonable force, it is excessive and gratuitous force. So if you shoot someone and they lived, you're fine, but if you shoot someone and they die, you will go to jail for murder. Total nonsense. Read the last link I gave: If you have acted in reasonable self-defence, as described above, and the intruder dies you will still have acted lawfully. It surprises me that you can be so wrong on this. The law on these matters has been broadly the same for centuries. If you need to kill someone in order to prevent them killing, then "deliberate lethal force" is reasonable. Of course, whether you really did need to kill someone is a matter to be assessed in each case. Reading between the lines, it seems that you have a problem with this case by case approach and 1) want a blanket rule, 2) seem to believe that the existing law does involve blanket rules. John Carson "The English language, complete with irony, satire, and sarcasm, has survived for centuries wihout smileys. Only the new crop of modern computer geeks finds it impossible to detect a joke that is not Clearly Labelled as such." Ray Shea
John Carson wrote: Of course. How does that contradict anything I have said? So what did you mean with the statement "it was plainly never the case that the police were charged in spite of the fact that they obeyed the law" ? :confused: John Carson wrote: Total nonsense. Read the last link I gave Where do you think I got my definitions from, if not the CPS? That's why I highlighted them. If you want legal precedence, look at Tony Martin. There are grey areas with that case, but it will have the most press coverage and it was reasonably recent. He deserved manslaughter but got charged with murder. Murder carries a mandatory minimum sentance. John Carson wrote: If you need to kill someone in order to prevent them killing, then "deliberate lethal force" is reasonable If it was unavoidable, you will be charged with manslaughter. If it was avoidable it is excessive and gratuitous force and you will be charged with murder. Unlawful killing can be either. It's not about blanket rules, it's about not being able to take propper consideration for what has happened when deciding the charge to be brought. The police officers, the judges, no one has a say in whether a charge is justified, only in the sentancing, and even then there are limits. The government is looking to push through new laws that will bring things more in line with what you are saying (and what I want) but they aren't here yet.
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (video)
