Stockwell cop kills again - BBC

[TAE]

Example: Info received from oridinary member of public about man acting suspiciously watching Post Office cash delivery. Observation on next two weeks confirms this - nothing criminal but clearly lurking around watching how the delivery happens. No idea as to identity and suveillance fails to identify him. On third week, delivery is robbed. Interception is ordered but due to radio failure is delayed by a few seconds and getaway vehicle drives off. During pursuit shots are fired at police and police fire back (no-one hit on either side). Following chase, two suspects arrested nearby (with members of public witnessing the whole thing and confirming police account) with large handgun and bag of money. No comment made in interviews. Charged with robbery, etc. Defence get up in Court and say "We thought this was a police training exercise. We were informants (they had previous for robbery) and we thought we were just helping them out. No evidence to corroborate this ridiculous claim. Guilty or Not guilty? Not guilty. )

The thing about jury trials in general is that you have no way of knowing why a jury reached a certain decision. All you know is that the jury decided that they could not convict on the given evidence.

 

[Azrael]

Because intelligence is not evidence. Knowing something is not the same as being able to prove it (and, going by the posts on numerous previous threads, unless you can prove something in a criminal court, it isn't true and doesn't exist).

That's not what was said though, is it; what was said was that if you can't prove something in a criminal court, we can't know it exists.

Not that I have any intention of having that debate again, and I'm not going to press the point, I just want my position repeated accurately.

As it happens I agree with you on this one: anyone waving guns around in the street deserves everything they get, and it's a very different situation to gunning down a man who is showing no visible evidence of a threat. (If a gun isn't visible evidence, I don't know what is.) I'd be interested to know if you think the conspiracy law could be changed to convict before a robbery has taken place.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Bullshit - an Uzi is the weapon of choice for somebody interested in serious deterrance...

Are you really this stupid?

Uzi = harder to get hold of, inacurate, low powered, expensive, hard to get amunition for, leaves balistics.

Out of curiosity, do you find it odd that no one else seems to be agreeing with your position and what would you attribute this dissention to?

 

[detective-boy]

Ha ha! So you agree with what I say!! There is no need to kill people...

I agree that in an ideal world it wouldn't happen. I agree it shouldn't happen. I say that plans are always intended to ensure it doesn't happen. But that sometimes things do not go according to plan in the real world. And that, sadly, the criminal justice system is such that allowing a robbery to take place and then intercepting the robbers is often the least worst way of proceeding for the variety of reasons I have outlined.

 

[detective-boy]

But that's the point. Police choose execution to a trial where guilt could be determined or not!! As it is the police killer played GOd...

You have still not explained why, if there is this fucking shoot to kill policy, the streets are not littered with the corpses of executed robbers ...

 

[detective-boy]

The thing about jury trials in general is that you have no way of knowing why a jury reached a certain decision. All you know is that the jury decided that they could not convict on the given evidence.

It was one (particularly ridiculous) example. There was no other explanation than they believed the defendants bizarre story at least to the point where they believed it raised a "reasonable doubt". There are dozens more. And examples of the activities of bent defence solicitors conspiring with robbers to seek to undermine prosecutions by playing "hunt the informant" and, as a result, leading to prosecutions being abandoned and robbers being returned to the street to rob again and (in at least one case I am aware of) kill someone.

If that is the system you want, where robbers can rob with impunity and the criminal justice system protects them, fine. Come out and say so. Vote for change.

But, of course you don't. You want it all ways.

 

[detective-boy]

As it happens I agree with you on this one: anyone waving guns around in the street deserves everything they get, and it's a very different situation to gunning down a man who is showing no visible evidence of a threat. (If a gun isn't visible evidence, I don't know what is.) I'd be interested to know if you think the conspiracy law could be changed to convict before a robbery has taken place.

The situations are essentially the same - it's just that in one case the threat is obvious and understandable whilst in the other it is not obvious and not so understandable .

I'm not sure that the conspiracy law could be changed in any way that would make any difference. The problem is not with the evidential requirements but with the trial process which allows the defence to get away with all sorts of shenanigins without effective censor because as soon as the Judge gets the arse the defence just say "Ah, My Lord, we may have ridden roughshod over the rules of the court, but to exclude this evidence or whatever would not be in the interests of justice" (Approximate translation - "Stuff us and we'll have you up the Appeal Court for a bollocking as quick as you like - no fucking promotion for you, matey"). If we see phone tap evidence getting admitted then that may assist to some extent (it is involved in some such cases, but not all).

 

[The Black Hand]

It was one (particularly ridiculous) example. There was no other explanation than they believed the defendants bizarre story at least to the point where they believed it raised a "reasonable doubt". There are dozens more. And examples of the activities of bent defence solicitors conspiring with robbers to seek to undermine prosecutions by playing "hunt the informant" and, as a result, leading to prosecutions being abandoned and robbers being returned to the street to rob again and (in at least one case I am aware of) kill someone.

If that is the system you want, where robbers can rob with impunity and the criminal justice system protects them, fine. Come out and say so. Vote for change.

But, of course you don't. You want it all ways.

You are deliberately muddying the waters. 'I know' when someone was guilty and 'they went out to kill' - its rubbish. Juries HAVE ALWAYS (going back hundreds of years) protected people against the law and its enforcers because we know you are lying corrupt filth

BUT the law doesn't protect 'robbers' - that is doubletalk a la George Orwell - YOU lot shoot them dead, Shoot to Kill.

 

[The Black Hand]

Are you really this stupid?

Uzi = harder to get hold of, inacurate, low powered, expensive, hard to get amunition for, leaves balistics.

Out of curiosity, do you find it odd that no one else seems to be agreeing with your position and what would you attribute this dissention to?

Uzi - serious deterrance, are you saying then that it could hit any pig in the general area

BTW I don't care what liberals think

Daddy was a Bank robber
He didn't kill no-body

 

[The Black Hand]

I agree that in an ideal world it wouldn't happen. I agree it shouldn't happen. I say that plans are always intended to ensure it doesn't happen. But that sometimes things do not go according to plan in the real world. And that, sadly, the criminal justice system is such that allowing a robbery to take place and then intercepting the robbers is often the least worst way of proceeding for the variety of reasons I have outlined.

At last some honesty... Though that is still the 'least worst way of proceeding for a variety of reasons' from a police point of view - that the police have decided is unofficial policy in practice. I can't believe it is ACPO policy, never mind anybody else having a democratic say.

 

[The Black Hand]

We come in peace - shoot to kill shoot to kill

You have still not explained why, if there is this fucking shoot to kill policy, the streets are not littered with the corpses of executed robbers ...

The British law in each and every case is the law that protects the interests of the rich and the powerful. It does not matter whether the direct interests of the rich and powerful are carried out in each and every case, just that the general framework and effect of law moves in their favour. The same is true for the police - it does not matter whether they shoot to kill in each and every case, the general framework of law carries on in their interest and they are never found guilty of murder...

In fact, its better that there is this leeway, that can be put down to 'accidents', 'particular mistakes', 'quality of information'; the fact is that they Shoot to Kill decade after decade - Stephen Waldorf, Cherry Groce, The bloke in his BED in Hastings (like the Black Panther leader the American police shot), etc... The Police Killer gets away with it all the time...

 

[detective-boy]

At last some honesty... Though that is still the 'least worst way of proceeding for a variety of reasons' from a police point of view - that the police have decided is unofficial policy in practice. I can't believe it is ACPO policy, never mind anybody else having a democratic say.

No "at last" about it. There is nothing about that quote which is new on my part.

The ambush is recognised as a tactic which should be used with great care and only if a clear case can be made for why nothing else is practicable. But the statistics show it is nowhere near as dangerous as may be thought when it is exercised properly. But, as with most things, sometimes do not go according to plan and sometimes those challenged decide not to comply (as they do in any sort of situation).

 

[TAE]

It was one (particularly ridiculous) example. There was no other explanation than they believed the defendants bizarre story at least to the point where they believed it raised a "reasonable doubt". There are dozens more. And examples of the activities of bent defence solicitors conspiring with robbers to seek to undermine prosecutions by playing "hunt the informant" and, as a result, leading to prosecutions being abandoned and robbers being returned to the street to rob again and (in at least one case I am aware of) kill someone.

I agree with you that this is a bad state of affairs. And in case you missed it, I'm concerned about the fact that a jury is completely unaccountable. For all you know, they could have reached their decision by rolling some dice. But on average I think the jury system is by far the best option.

If that is the system you want, where robbers can rob with impunity and the criminal justice system protects them, fine. Come out and say so. Vote for change.

FFS, now you are sounding like Attica.

But, of course you don't. You want it all ways.

Yes, I do. I want a legal system which protects the innocent and convicts the guilty. Radical eh?

 

[The Black Hand]

Originally Posted by Attica
At last some honesty... Though that is still the 'least worst way of proceeding for a variety of reasons' from a police point of view - that the police have decided is unofficial policy in practice. I can't believe it is ACPO policy, never mind anybody else having a democratic say.

No "at last" about it. There is nothing about that quote which is new on my part.

The ambush is recognised as a tactic which should be used with great care and only if a clear case can be made for why nothing else is practicable. But the statistics show it is nowhere near as dangerous as may be thought when it is exercised properly. But, as with most things, sometimes do not go according to plan and sometimes those challenged decide not to comply (as they do in any sort of situation).

'At last some honesty' was talking about your acknowledgement for the first time that there are other interpretations of what goes on... I still notice you have not answered the points about democratic accountability, who exactly has decided that that is policy (and hence can avoid accountability) etc...

 

[detective-boy]

In fact, its better that there is this leeway, that can be put down to 'accidents', 'particular mistakes', 'quality of information'; the fact is that they Shoot to Kill decade after decade - Stephen Waldorf, Cherry Groce, The bloke in his BED in Hastings (like the Black Panther leader the American police shot), etc... The Police Killer gets away with it all the time...

Most likely way of solving this "problem":

Everyone give up carrying guns and other lethal weapons and robbing and killing people. That way the police won't need guns, will they? And they won't have to go into situations where mistakes may be made (because, in the real world I inhabit, mistakes are always possible). If the mistakes are found to amount to a criminal offence then there will be a trial (and there have been lots of trials). If the jury decide there is insufficient evidence, then so be it. There was no offence.

Because "Juries HAVE ALWAYS (going back hundreds of years) protected people against the law and its enforcers because we know you are lying corrupt filth" (now who WAS it that said that... ?) when you allege that the police are murdering scum.

 

[The Black Hand]

I agree with you that this is a bad state of affairs. And in case you missed it, I'm concerned about the fact that a jury is completely unaccountable. For all you know, they could have decided to roll some dice. But on average I think the jury system is by far the best option.


FFS, now you are sounding like Attica.



Yes, I do. I want a legal system which protects the innocent and convicts the guilty. Radical eh?

Liberal!!

The British law in each and every case is the law that protects the interests of the rich and the powerful. It does not matter whether the direct interests of the rich and powerful are carried out in each and every case, just that the general framework and effect of law moves in their favour.

The rich and the police on the right, the liberal who wants bourgeois equality in the middle (so the rich and the poor have equal opportunity to sleep under the bridges), and to the left real equality, genuine accountability and fairness...

 

[TAE]

Which part of my post, exactly, do you disagree with?

 

[detective-boy]

'At last some honesty' was talking about your acknowledgement for the first time that there are other interpretations of what goes on... I still notice you have not answered the points about democratic accountability, who exactly has decided that that is policy (and hence can avoid accountability) etc...

I have ALWAYS acknowledged that there are other interpretations and other potential courses of action. I used to command these operations for fuck's sake. Do you not think I thought What if ...?" Do you not think I was desperate to find some other way of achieving an acceptable outcome in solving the problem of the armed robber terrorising their victims? Just because you have chosen not to read my posts properly previously is not my problem.

I have no problem with questions being asked about the policy. I have no doubt that it will be subjected to review in the light of this incident, and quite rightly so. I am simply explaining the basis for why the tactic is used despite the (seemingly obvious) existence of less risky alternatives. (Which I know because I wrote a full review of the tactic when the Human Rights Act was coming in). If you do not wish to listen to / believe me, then that is your prerogative.

You would also know, if you ever read my posts, that I believe that there should be a public exmaination of the evidence in cases such as this and that I do not think it does anyone any favours for the decisions to be made "behind closed doors" as that gives the perception of cover-up even though I (and anyone else who has had dealings with the IPCC / CPS) know that it is not. I don't think it should be a public enquiry because that would be unfit for the purpose for other reasons - it should be something like a cross between a criminal trial, an inquest and a public enquiry. Like a Grand Jury type of thing in the States. And I also believe that it would be equitable for police (and any other agent of the State) to be sent for criminal trial on the old basis of prima facie case rather than the "likelihood of conviction" test the CPS apply to all criminal cases.

 

[detective-boy]

Yes, I do. I want a legal system which protects the innocent and convicts the guilty. Radical eh?

I don't think any sensible person would disagree with that. But I was talking about the practicalities of dealing with dangerous criminals. You want them challenged in totally safe ways, which produce sufficient admissible evidence, to ensure they are convicted if guilty. And I am saying I would love for that to be possible. But, in the real world it isn't. The current tactics lead to lots of dangerous robbers being brought to justice, with evidence which is unchallengable, with only occasional problems like this. The alternative would lead to a much raised acquittal rate (and lots more victims of armed robbery as the stats show that armed robbers re-offend almost compulsively). We have been there - that is why the tactics were changed. We should be wary about going back to where we came from.

 

[TAE]

Now I have to ask you, db, the same question I asked Attica:

Which part of my post, exactly, do you disagree with?

My concern is merely that the police need to be accountable, and I'm sure you'd agree with that.

 

[The Black Hand]

Which part of my post, exactly, do you disagree with?

Liberal

 

[The Black Hand]

I have ALWAYS acknowledged that there are other interpretations and other potential courses of action. I used to command these operations for fuck's sake. Do you not think I thought What if ...?" Do you not think I was desperate to find some other way of achieving an acceptable outcome in solving the problem of the armed robber terrorising their victims? Just because you have chosen not to read my posts properly previously is not my problem.

I have no problem with questions being asked about the policy. I have no doubt that it will be subjected to review in the light of this incident, and quite rightly so. I am simply explaining the basis for why the tactic is used despite the (seemingly obvious) existence of less risky alternatives. (Which I know because I wrote a full review of the tactic when the Human Rights Act was coming in). If you do not wish to listen to / believe me, then that is your prerogative.

You would also know, if you ever read my posts, that I believe that there should be a public exmaination of the evidence in cases such as this and that I do not think it does anyone any favours for the decisions to be made "behind closed doors" as that gives the perception of cover-up even though I (and anyone else who has had dealings with the IPCC / CPS) know that it is not. I don't think it should be a public enquiry because that would be unfit for the purpose for other reasons - it should be something like a cross between a criminal trial, an inquest and a public enquiry. Like a Grand Jury type of thing in the States. And I also believe that it would be equitable for police (and any other agent of the State) to be sent for criminal trial on the old basis of prima facie case rather than the "likelihood of conviction" test the CPS apply to all criminal cases.

I still notice you have not answered the points about democratic accountability, who exactly has decided that that is policy (and hence can avoid accountability) etc...

 

[detective-boy]

Now I have to ask you, db, the same question I asked Attica:

My concern is merely that the police need to be accountable, and I'm sure you'd agree with that.

I don;t think I disagree with any of your post as such. I simply raise the point that actually getting a justice system in which the guilty are convicted and the innocent are acquitted is not quite so easy in practice. We quite rightly have rules of evidence which protect the interests of defendants but the result of that is that experience very much shows that juries are reluctant to convict on conspiracy charges, even with the best possible evidence (surveillance, photos, even recovered firearms, etc.) (I've noted that if we start using phone tap evidence in the UK it may change this - every officer I know hopes so). So this means that the two stark alternatives are:

(a) arrest for conspiracy, probably in a situation which is less confrontational, and hence less risky, than an ambush, but expect that the suspects will be released from custody without charge within a few days or, more likely, on acquittal after a year or so. And then go on to commit more robberies you know nothing about and cannot control / prevent in any way (and, perhaps, kill your original informant if there was one), or

(b) control the situation as closely as possible and mount an armed surveillance operation, ambushing at the safest possible moment (usually as they are putting guns away / getting into getaway vehicles), and expect that they will be convicted and sentenced to many years imprisonment, preventing further offences (by locking them up and by deterring others) and minimising issues regarding any informant.

The Flying Squad have demonstrated that (b) works (armed robbery figures have plummetted since the early 1990s - largely due to effectiveness in nicking robbers and getting then locked up but also due to crime prevention and sentencing policy (two strikes now = life)) AND that it can be done safely - I would be interested to see the number of instances of shots fired / violence used in robberies "controlled" by a Flying Squad surveillance pending ambush with the usual levels seen in armed robberies. My experience would suggest there would be no appreciable difference, perhaps even less.

And, as I have posted repeatedly, I have absolutely no issue with accountability. I DO have a problem with people who see a single instance and immediately demand that the tactic be withdrawn because the police are out-of-control / have a shoot-to-kill policy / are stupid / incompetent or whatever. Policing is (despite what you might think) and increasingly professionalised business. It IS done thoroughly when it comes to this sort of operation. BUT there will always be things going wrong in the real world. I argue we must accept that ... mainly because there actually is no "things going wrong"-free. alternative.

 

[detective-boy]

I still notice you have not answered the points about democratic accountability, who exactly has decided that that is policy (and hence can avoid accountability) etc...

The police. It is a matter of professional practice. You don;t expect the fucking doctor to ring you up and ask your advice on the best way of taking out a fucking ingrowing toenail, do you?

It is a well-known tactic which has been used for decades and has been enquired about in detail in trial after trial after trial and, when people have been killed, the very occasional inquest.

It appears on the front of the fucking Evening Standard every month or two. And, increasingly on TV with video footage becoming available. You have seen the programmes about the robbery at the airport recently? And about the big diamond heist at the Dome? Or we're you so fucking out of it you missed it.

If anyone has any issue, they can ask the police to be accountable. I have no problem with that and, as I have said, it has been raiserd in various fora repeatedly over the years. I do have a problem with twats like you implying that (a) it is blood lust rather than a well-considered policy to address a very difficult problem and (b) that somehow it is secret. It isn't either.

 

[The Black Hand]

POlice operate a Shoot to Kill policy

The police. It is a matter of professional practice. You don;t expect the fucking doctor to ring you up and ask your advice on the best way of taking out a fucking ingrowing toenail, do you?

It is a well-known tactic which has been used for decades and has been enquired about in detail in trial after trial after trial and, when people have been killed, the very occasional inquest.

It appears on the front of the fucking Evening Standard every month or two. And, increasingly on TV with video footage becoming available. You have seen the programmes about the robbery at the airport recently? And about the big diamond heist at the Dome? Or we're you so fucking out of it you missed it.

If anyone has any issue, they can ask the police to be accountable. I have no problem with that and, as I have said, it has been raiserd in various fora repeatedly over the years. I do have a problem with twats like you implying that (a) it is blood lust rather than a well-considered policy to address a very difficult problem and (b) that somehow it is secret. It isn't either. QUOTE]

SO - the police make it up as they go along with no assessment of that practice, and even the ACPO don't deem it worthwhile to have a policy on... wait for it... policing practice!! Something you would think that there would be...There is no democratic input into the debate either.

SO they DO operate an unaccountable "Shoot to kill" policy

AND you call me out of it!! If you weren't so set on justifying your previous actions and current police activities you might have a point of view which was interesting. AS it is all you are doing is justifying the status quo - the police ARE conservatives which is what the left always said....

What you are justifying is the police playing god, without any rational input or policy into the procedure... Police hierarchy allows people to go out there knowing that people will die, innocent people (for you are innocent till proven guilty) are then executed by the state and its operatives in a totally predictable manner time and time again. The procedure if not secret IS hidden and the police can present it after the fact and portray it in the best possible light, when really its yet more shoddy standards from people who don't allow 'intelligence' anywhere near their policies

The police killer (for they know that is what they are likely to become) gets away with it time after time, but worse the entire hierarchy and twats like you cover it up and put a 'wespectable' gloss on it...

 

[The Black Hand]

Most likely way of solving this "problem":

Everyone give up carrying guns and other lethal weapons and robbing and killing people. That way the police won't need guns, will they? And they won't have to go into situations where mistakes may be made (because, in the real world I inhabit, mistakes are always possible). If the mistakes are found to amount to a criminal offence then there will be a trial (and there have been lots of trials). If the jury decide there is insufficient evidence, then so be it. There was no offence.

Because "Juries HAVE ALWAYS (going back hundreds of years) protected people against the law and its enforcers because we know you are lying corrupt filth" (now who WAS it that said that... ?) when you allege that the police are murdering scum.

The problems I have with the system is not so much juries... But the way that police killers and other police misdemeanors don't come to trial in the first place, evidence gets lost etc. The DPP is in the pocket of the police all too frequently - sometimes even working in the same building... The police federation backs its 'boys' to the hilt too, they are professionals in getting people off charges. The front page news about police convictions and even drunk police drivers getting off too is public knowledge I notice these things - you prefer to forget

 

[Bigdavalad]

SO they DO operate an unaccountable "Shoot to kill" policy

As opposed to what? Shoot to annoy?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

As opposed to what? Shoot to annoy?

Shoot to entertain. Water pistols and squirting lapel ornaments all round!

 

[JHE]

As opposed to what? Shoot to annoy?

The plod is supposed to shoot the sawn-off out of the hand of the baddy, without injuring anyone. He is also supposed to smoke a cigar and say very little. Ideally he should be called Clint.

Alternatively, there's the Dixon of Dock Green method (that I've already explained).

 

[The Black Hand]

The plod is supposed to shoot the sawn-off out of the hand of the baddy, without injuring anyone. He is also supposed to smoke a cigar and say very little. Ideally he should be called Clint.

Alternatively, there's the Dixon of Dock Green method (that I've already explained).

Rather than execute it is the police task to prevent crime is it not? Not 'let it happen and then kill people'. All they have to do is intercept at an earlier stage... Its not difficult, nor rocket science
Rather - they love death and action - many serious studies of the police have noted that they love the 'heoroic myths' - the chases, adrenalin etc...

the position I have presented is actually NOT a revolutionary position its a managerial liberal and democratic one (ie. basic humanism).