I think the Inquiry is more into the accusation that the Police Chief was lying about what happened for a good while after the event.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4478188.stm
It'll be a long time I'd expect before the results come out.
Printable View
I think the Inquiry is more into the accusation that the Police Chief was lying about what happened for a good while after the event.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4478188.stm
It'll be a long time I'd expect before the results come out.
Yeap, i will never understand those "tenses"... :) Thanks for the correction.Quote:
thing is amigo, you are talking "Past Tense" (could be a lang prob???)
btw, Brasil people speaks Portuguese, not Spanish :)
Eg: I understand your example, but its not the case. They have (or had?) nothing. Just because the guy went out for a house under survelliance.... bang.
And even on your example: you a policeman kills a innocent, IMHO he must be prosecuted. (sued?). Without this kind of consequence, police will just shoot anyone.
Hi cacosapo,
I agree that every shooting should be investigated ( maybe that's the word you're trying to use instead of prosecuted? ) ... but if the shooting is deemed to be reasonable under the circumstances then it should be dropped...the police should not be prosecuted for doing their jobs...even if that job results in an unfortunate death.
Eg ;)
You say potato I say potatoe,(splitting hairs?)(Portugese/Spanish)(a cockney and scouser speak the same lang, sort of) the point is the same, "Past tense", as far as prosecuting the police officer, I feel his superiors should back him to the hilt until it hurts, he was following not only orders, but instinct.........Wasn't it "Spock" who once said "the needs of many outweigh the needs of one". :DQuote:
btw, Brasil people speaks Portuguese, not Spanish
Police in civilised countries, as a rule do not just shoot anyone,maybe in your part of the hemisphere, this is the rule as opposed to the exception?
There are unfortunatley, wrongful deaths, and these happen, when a police officer is under stress and in a serious situation, and the possibilty of having to defend oneself, then yeah mistakes can happen, the kid who likes to play cops & robbers, pulls out superb plastic copy of a Mac 10 and aims it at the cop, what would you do (kids as young as 6 are able to pull triggers with intent), you have 0.02 seconds to make a decision, this aint lining up at MacDonalds for a cheesburger where you hold up the entire frigging line while you make a decision.
There are always investigations after a "Shoot", and this is mostly to protect the officer as well as to ascertain the facts surrounding the shooting.
You can talk to a lot of police officers in either the US, UK or Canada, that have never fired a shot their whole career, so it's not like, they are so experienced at shooting "bad people".
Do you know what cops in North America fear the most, and believe it or not it's not the hold-ups or the gangsta's or organised crime, it's the leave it to Beaver families that suddenly lose it and try to kill each other, they hate "domestic disturbances" mostly because it is such an emotional scenario, and you have to be careful how you play it out, one wrong word and all hell may break out.
Not exactly like rounding up kids at the beach, whisking them away never to be seen again? :rolleyes:
This is something I feel quite strongly about.Quote:
.the police should not be prosecuted for doing their jobs...even if that job results in an unfortunate death.
In the literal sense, I agree. However, mistakes are made either through negligence or a (to use a cliché) comedy of errors.
Negligence is never excusable and should always be punished. It should matter not who is negligent. Due process of law should be followed and the negligent party prosecuted as per the laws requirement. This happens in most cases, except where the police are concerned.
Within the British Army all instances of firing a weapon in error are considered Negligent even when training. The police do not, they use the term, “accidental”. Compare the two terms and the punishment that goes along with them?
I agree to a point jinxy, however the rules are applied differently to Military personnell then to law enforcement agencies. I am sure you guys have the old QR & O's (Queens Regulations & Orders), the Law Enforcement types have unions, we don't (good reason for that), and better lawers, we have Jag's (Judge Advocates) who in my opinion are nothing more then suck ups to the top brass anyways.Quote:
Within the British Army all instances of firing a weapon in error are considered Negligent even when training. The police do not, they use the term, “accidental”. Compare the two terms and the punishment that goes along with them?
When our bill of rights were handed back to us by the Queen in 82, a lot of the paragraphs had writing in brackets and in red, basically saying "with the exception of the armed forces" so what may protect joe blow on the streest, doesn't mean the guys in uniform get the same protections.
Also, in most cases where there has been a shooting by the police, it can and will be a public matter, not so the Military unless someone rats it out or the media get wind of it, then it comes out.
Otherwise your right negligence is serious stuff and should be punished.