Rob W 0 Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 No charges for gun death officers Two policemen will not be charged after shooting dead a man carrying a table leg they mistook for a sawn-off shotgun, the CPS has said. Metropolitan Police officer Insp Neil Sharman and Pc Kevin Fagan were arrested in June in connection with the death of Harry Stanley, 46. The father-of-three, originally from Lanarkshire, Scotland, was shot dead in Hackney, east London, in 1999. The CPS said on Thursday there was insufficient evidence to charge them. Mr Stanley was carrying a blue plastic bag containing a coffee table leg which had just been repaired when the officers opened fire as he walked home from the Alexandra pub. STANLEY CASE EVENTS Sep 1999: Mr Stanley shot dead June 2002: Inquest returns open verdict April 2003: High Court orders new inquest Oct 2004: Inquest returns unlawful killing verdict May 2005: High Court quashes second inquest verdict June 2005: Two officers arrested October 2005: CPS decides to take no action against the officers Insp Sharman shot the father-of-three in the head, killing him instantly, while Pc Fagan also opened fire. A second inquest in October 2004 returned a verdict of unlawful killing and the two Metropolitan Police officers were suspended from duty. This led to an unofficial strike by members of SO19, the force's firearms unit. The inquest verdict was quashed by the High Court in May of this year but an investigation was launched resulting in the arrests. The two officers were questioned on suspicion of murder, manslaughter, gross negligence and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice after new forensic evidence was said to have emerged. In a statement, the Crown Prosecution Service said: "The CPS has concluded that the prosecution evidence is insufficient to rebut the officers' assertion that they were acting in self defence. "We have also concluded that the threat which they believed they faced made the use of fatal force reasonable in the circumstances as they perceived them." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jusoda Kid 1 Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 No charges for gun death officers Two policemen will not be charged after shooting dead a man carrying a table leg they mistook for a sawn-off shotgun, the CPS has said. Metropolitan Police officer Insp Neil Sharman and Pc Kevin Fagan were arrested in June in connection with the death of Harry Stanley, 46. The father-of-three, originally from Lanarkshire, Scotland, was shot dead in Hackney, east London, in 1999. The CPS said on Thursday there was insufficient evidence to charge them. Mr Stanley was carrying a blue plastic bag containing a coffee table leg which had just been repaired when the officers opened fire as he walked home from the Alexandra pub. STANLEY CASE EVENTS Sep 1999: Mr Stanley shot dead June 2002: Inquest returns open verdict April 2003: High Court orders new inquest Oct 2004: Inquest returns unlawful killing verdict May 2005: High Court quashes second inquest verdict June 2005: Two officers arrested October 2005: CPS decides to take no action against the officers Insp Sharman shot the father-of-three in the head, killing him instantly, while Pc Fagan also opened fire. A second inquest in October 2004 returned a verdict of unlawful killing and the two Metropolitan Police officers were suspended from duty. This led to an unofficial strike by members of SO19, the force's firearms unit. The inquest verdict was quashed by the High Court in May of this year but an investigation was launched resulting in the arrests. The two officers were questioned on suspicion of murder, manslaughter, gross negligence and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice after new forensic evidence was said to have emerged. In a statement, the Crown Prosecution Service said: "The CPS has concluded that the prosecution evidence is insufficient to rebut the officers' assertion that they were acting in self defence. "We have also concluded that the threat which they believed they faced made the use of fatal force reasonable in the circumstances as they perceived them." 47589[/snapback] Suprised, I'm not. I'd put money on them getting off with the tube shooting as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 They look after their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 (edited) There is bits missing here.... Not that I think Rob is deliberately doing it to suggest the police just pulled a gun out and shot him for no reason as he walked down the street, being one of those who thinks you can just do what you want like and balls to anyone else ....... .... until someone bothers him personally of course Edited October 20, 2005 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Bit of a cover up though I reckon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Far from being one who wouldn't admit they are wrong if it did turn out they shot him at random for doing absolutely nothing ..... It's a bit of a strange slant on the story, to miss out all the backround to the incident, why is that I wonder, surely a man of Robs experience realises there is more to it than that ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Far from being one who wouldn't admit they are wrong if it did turn out they shot him at random for doing absolutely nothing ..... It's a bit of a strange slant on the story, to miss out all the backround to the incident, why is that I wonder, surely a man of Robs experience realises there is more to it than that ! 47644[/snapback] Aye, there's obviously a lot more to the incident. The bloke who was shot obviously had mental problems and I can't believe for a minute that killing a bloke who was only carrying a table leg didn't have an awful effect on all those concerned. A very sad accident IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3974461.stm now then. The same old story, if a copper asks you to stop, what would you do ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3974461.stm now then. The same old story, if a copper asks you to stop, what would you do ? 47648[/snapback] Having read that, I would say he did nowt wrong even if you believe the Police's version of events. And with reference to saying he had mental problems, I must have been thinking of a different incident. Sounds like a major fuck-up followed by a major cover-up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 I wonder how the person who phoned the Police thinking the Scotsman with a table leg was an Irishman with a shotgun feels. Bloody Southener I'll bet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar 0 Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3974461.stm now then. The same old story, if a copper asks you to stop, what would you do ? 47648[/snapback] He stopped and turned round by the sounds of the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3974461.stm now then. The same old story, if a copper asks you to stop, what would you do ? 47648[/snapback] He stopped and turned round by the sounds of the article. 47682[/snapback] funny, but I saw this bit. The father of three was only about 100 yards from home when he heard the shout: "Stop, armed police". 'Barrel of a shotgun' Pc Kevin Fagan and Inspector Neil Sharman, say Mr Stanley turned around, and raised the bag, which they believed to contain a gun. Pc Fagan said Mr Stanley stood in a "boxer's stance", moving his left hand so he was gripping the bag in both hands. He told the second inquest he was convinced he was "looking down the barrel of a shotgun". Wierd how you do gooders only see what you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 3973 Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Independent witnesses or the word of those involved? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 what are you talking about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads 0 Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 What's the motivation behind starting a pathetic thread like this one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 3973 Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 what are you talking about 47712[/snapback] The only people who say he brandished the leg like a gun are the coppers who shot him. As they would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 5899 Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 if my dad was shot in the head for carrying a table leg id be quite miffed too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar 0 Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 (edited) Funny Leazes, that bit you quoted does seem to say he stopped and turned round. What do you think he was doing? Cocking his table leg, pointing it at the coppers and going "Bang bang!"? Why? Why would you turn round and aim a table leg at someone? How do you take a "boxers stance" with a table leg in your hand? Is it normal to stand like a boxer when you're about to shoot someone with a shotgun? Should I follow you through Eldon Square and shout "Armed police!" at you and see if you immediately lob anything you're carrying in the air and throw yourself face down on the ground, or if your first instinct is to turn around and see who they're talking to? Didn't we discuss a while ago that people didn't just get accused of stuff for nothing apparently? How come you're the one trying to get people off and spare them jail and yet I'm still the do gooder? Edited October 21, 2005 by BlueStar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 (edited) what are you talking about 47712[/snapback] The only people who say he brandished the leg like a gun are the coppers who shot him. As they would. 47724[/snapback] likewise if anyone he knew had been there, they would have said he wasn't. As they would. Are you really saying you think a copper would go and shoot someone for absolutley nothing ? {BTW, I knew you would be saying that, but just wondered if you would spell it out] The point is, no one else was there, there is only one witness. Tough shit. Edited October 21, 2005 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 3973 Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 what are you talking about 47712[/snapback] The only people who say he brandished the leg like a gun are the coppers who shot him. As they would. 47724[/snapback] likewise if anyone he knew had been there, they would have said he wasn't. As they would. Are you really saying you think a copper would go and shoot someone for absolutley nothing ? {BTW, I knew you would be saying that, but just wondered if you would spell it out] The point is, no one else was there, there is only one witness. Tough shit. 47969[/snapback] No I don't think they "just shot him" but I do think it seems over-zealous in the circumstances and its an easy chance for them to cover up something which was probably a mistake. However I think that miistake should not just be ignored. Theres only one witness one one side of the fence in lots of cases - most rapes for instance but they still sometimes get a chance of a trial. Turning your question around do you think coppers should be allowed to shoot people and "get away with it" with the use of a reasonably sounding excuse which can't be questioned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 what are you talking about 47712[/snapback] The only people who say he brandished the leg like a gun are the coppers who shot him. As they would. 47724[/snapback] likewise if anyone he knew had been there, they would have said he wasn't. As they would. Are you really saying you think a copper would go and shoot someone for absolutley nothing ? {BTW, I knew you would be saying that, but just wondered if you would spell it out] The point is, no one else was there, there is only one witness. Tough shit. 47969[/snapback] No I don't think they "just shot him" but I do think it seems over-zealous in the circumstances and its an easy chance for them to cover up something which was probably a mistake. However I think that miistake should not just be ignored. Theres only one witness one one side of the fence in lots of cases - most rapes for instance but they still sometimes get a chance of a trial. Turning your question around do you think coppers should be allowed to shoot people and "get away with it" with the use of a reasonably sounding excuse which can't be questioned? 47985[/snapback] the sole reason this thread was started was to motivate those like yourself who are anti police to start on about how reckless coppers are with guns, and persecute someone entrusted by the public to look after our safety, for shooting someone who I have, personally, no reason to doubt that, he thought had a gun and was himself about to be shot at. Thats because I trust the police in situations like this. If you don't, then it's your prerogative. Next time they might have a bomb or a gun, then what would you say. You appear to be completely unable to accept the fact that in these situations, the overall decision has to be made to put the public first, and if someone puts themselves in such a position as to cause suspicion upon themselves and their actions and intentions, then it is, as I said, tough shit. I would have more sense to do this, would you ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar 0 Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 (edited) Next time they might have a bomb or a gun And if police are not held accountable for their actions, then next time some trigger happy cop sees you with a shiney kit-kat wrapper you might get shot. http://www.godoskygentile.com/CM/Articles/Articles7.asp Edited October 21, 2005 by BlueStar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 Next time they might have a bomb or a gun And if police are not held accountable for their actions, then next time some trigger happy cop sees you with a shiney kit-kat wrapper you might get shot. http://www.godoskygentile.com/CM/Articles/Articles7.asp 48080[/snapback] rubbish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar 0 Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 Yeah, by the time it gets in the papers you'll have been wearing a berghaus jacket in the middle of summer and vaulted a ticket barrier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now