Ah so, they feel they *should* be able to shoot anyone carrying a wooden stick if they're told by an anonymous tipster that he thinks it might be a shotgun (In a bag, no less, not being waved threateningly about), and not face any repercussions. This sort of bullcrap loyalty-above-all-else-even-if-the-cop-involved-is-bad is what gives the police a bad name.
> In a bag, no less, not being waved threateningly about
Which is not what their story is. They say they were told he had a gun, they yelled "Stop! Police!", and he spun around and raised the object they were told was a gun towards them.
The jury says they're lying - but that's not the point. The point is that the other cops believe them, and the real point is that you've got London SWAT not wanting to carry guns because if they use them in what they feel is defense of their own lives, they might get sent to prison.
Even in their story, it was *in a plastic shopping bag*. Even if it *was* a shotgun, the shooting would be unjustified. The jury, as far as I understand it, doesn't say they're lying, it's saying that they were *wrong* to consider themselves threatened.
A shotgun in a shopping bag, being raised to point at you, is just as dangerous as a shotgun outside a shopping bag being raised to point at you.
It's just a little harder to tell it from a chair leg.
The Canadians have a term for people acting as if they have weapons hidden and acting in threatening ways - they call it "suicide by cop". People who are not armed act in such a way that they convince the police that they *are* armed and about to attack, and get themselves shot - which was, from the beginning, their objective.
> Even in their story, it was *in a plastic shopping bag*.
That would make it _harder_ to tell that it wasn't a shotgun, right? No-one (from the admittedly skimpy article) seems to be questioning that it was reasonable for them to believe it was a weapon; even the lawyer for the defense doesn't seem to be arguing that point.
> Even if it *was* a shotgun, the shooting would be > unjustified. The jury, as far as I understand it, doesn't > say they're lying, it's saying that they were *wrong* to > consider themselves threatened.
Actually, it looks like the jury's saying they _were_ lying--the line "The family argued that ballistics evidence showed that the officers' account could not be true, a claim ultimately believed by the inquest jury" _really_ strongly suggests that the jury believes that what the officers said happened did not happen, (and to me it reads specifically as if what they disbelieved was the fact that Stanley turned around fully and pointed the 'gun' at them--this seems like the sort of thing which could be disproved by ballistic evidence; for example, you could expect a study of how bullets hit someone to be relevant to establishing wether or not they had turned around fully by the time they were shot).
This even coincides with what the lawyer is saying; that while no-one's doubting that they had reason to believe it was a gun, they may have shot him before he was in a position to effectively be a threat to them with the gun.
In either case, the Met police appear to be asking themselves if--even if they were to act in accordance with their training, which may not be what the two officers charged did--they would be suspended or face criminal charges. This is subtly but relevantly different from wanting to bop around and be free of repercussion while shooting people on casual suspicion and the say-so of third parties (a course of action which I am fairly sure is not in accordance with their training).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-02 07:00 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-02 07:15 am (UTC)Which is not what their story is. They say they were told he had a gun, they yelled "Stop! Police!", and he spun around and raised the object they were told was a gun towards them.
The jury says they're lying - but that's not the point. The point is that the other cops believe them, and the real point is that you've got London SWAT not wanting to carry guns because if they use them in what they feel is defense of their own lives, they might get sent to prison.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-02 07:41 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-02 08:01 am (UTC)It's just a little harder to tell it from a chair leg.
The Canadians have a term for people acting as if they have weapons hidden and acting in threatening ways - they call it "suicide by cop". People who are not armed act in such a way that they convince the police that they *are* armed and about to attack, and get themselves shot - which was, from the beginning, their objective.
Re-reading the article
Date: 2004-11-02 10:25 am (UTC)That would make it _harder_ to tell that it wasn't a shotgun, right? No-one (from the admittedly skimpy article) seems to be questioning that it was reasonable for them to believe it was a weapon; even the lawyer for the defense doesn't seem to be arguing that point.
> Even if it *was* a shotgun, the shooting would be
> unjustified. The jury, as far as I understand it, doesn't
> say they're lying, it's saying that they were *wrong* to
> consider themselves threatened.
Actually, it looks like the jury's saying they _were_ lying--the line "The family argued that ballistics evidence showed that the officers' account could not be true, a claim ultimately believed by the inquest jury" _really_ strongly suggests that the jury believes that what the officers said happened did not happen, (and to me it reads specifically as if what they disbelieved was the fact that Stanley turned around fully and pointed the 'gun' at them--this seems like the sort of thing which could be disproved by ballistic evidence; for example, you could expect a study of how bullets hit someone to be relevant to establishing wether or not they had turned around fully by the time they were shot).
This even coincides with what the lawyer is saying; that while no-one's doubting that they had reason to believe it was a gun, they may have shot him before he was in a position to effectively be a threat to them with the gun.
In either case, the Met police appear to be asking themselves if--even if they were to act in accordance with their training, which may not be what the two officers charged did--they would be suspended or face criminal charges. This is subtly but relevantly different from wanting to bop around and be free of repercussion while shooting people on casual suspicion and the say-so of third parties (a course of action which I am fairly sure is not in accordance with their training).