| |
|
Why was this person put in a situation where they could shoot people?
As I understand it unless the officers were actually charged for the shooting (which, so far, they have not) then the police see no reason why they should not be allowed to continue doing their job.
From the Guardian: police would not last night go into detail about the incident, although the unnamed man, 42, reportedly opened fire first with a shotgun. The Independent Police Complaints Commission has begun an investigation after taking over an initial inquiry by Kent police.
Now obviously, given the previous incident, there is going to be a question mark over any shooting that involves these officers, and a lot of people will remember the initial spin put on the De Menezes shooting about "a man with a heavy jacket and wires sticking out". But this does sound, on this snippet of information, like the kind of situation that will occasionally happen to police marksmen (ie shooting someone who is firing a weapon).
Why did they not face any criminal charges for the De Menezes's unlawful Death?
I believe this thread does discuss this in some detail. But the upshot is that it's been a whitewash for the police officers involved. The Metropolitan Police are facing Health and Safety charges if you can believe it?
There are a lot of differing opinions on who exactly is responsible for the killing of Mr De Menezes.
But the official reason why they weren't prosecuted (also from The Guardian):
The report on the incident by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), delivered to the CPS last January, raised the possibility of manslaughter charges against the two firearms officers and Scotland Yard Commander Cressida Dick, the senior designated officer in charge of the firearms operation on the day of the shooting. The IPCC investigated whether she had given a clear-cut order for officers to shoot to kill.
Though the independent inquiry found multiple errors from senior officers downwards, the CPS remit was to consider whether an actual criminal offence had taken place that could be ascribed to any officer involved in the killing.
Under its code, the CPS has to consider whether the evidence is sufficient, whether a prosecution would have a reasonable prospect of success and whether it would be in the public interest.
In taking the decision, crown prosecutors sought advice from an independent QC, Clare Montgomery, a highly-regarded criminal silk practising from Matrix, the former chambers of the director of public prosecutions, Ken Macdonald QC. Decisions not to prosecute can be judicially reviewed by the courts if the reasoning is flawed and have been quashed in the past.
But Ms Wistrich said yesterday she suspected the CPS decision in the Menezes case "will have been very carefully gone through by several senior people". |
|
|
