People who shoot people in the UK should stand trial?

Question

I belive everyone, including the army and police should stand trial for shooting someone. The jury can decide if they were justified or not.
What do you think.

In the UK if a police officer shoots someone he is obviously investigated by the police, then let off.
But I think he should be investigated by the JURY in the trial. otherwise UNARMED people in the UK will continue to be gunned down by cops.

Obviously if the cop is being shot at he has grounds to shoot someone, and the jury will aquit him.

The British army have been known to set up road blocks (Northern Ireland) then riddle cars with holes if they don't stop)

I belive a cop should carry a gun to defend himself, not to go on the offensive with it.

How can you say it would clutter up the courts? So you think it is ok for cops to hold unarmed people down and shoot them in the head 11 times without going to trial because they said he may have been a terrorist?

and the clip held 14 bullets, so he missed 3 times at point blank, in a crowded public tube station.

The British army gunned down 3 unarmed people in Gibraltar, one a woman who they shot over 10 times.

War is war, I am talking about army road blocks on UK roads.

Answer 1

Depends on the individual case, is that very common in the UK?

Answer 2

I served 30years in a large UK police force in that time one person was shot,This is reality !the same rules apply for police as anyone else if someone is shot then all evidence is assessed and if necessary a prosecution taken.If as in most cases the shooting is shown to be lawful then it is deemed not sufficeint evidence to prosecute.Why would it be in the public interest to put this before a jury?.
Very few UK policemen are willing to carry firearms now ,with a system like you're proposing none would as it stands now they are suspended from duty for months or sometimes years whilst inquiries go into the incident putting the officers and their family under tremendous stress and for who?people like you who say they should be treated as criminals automatically.
As for the army it would cost more than a whole war .Imagine a trial involving a soldier who machine gunned down fifty enemy troops.

Answer 3

I don't know exactly how it is over there, but in here, Puerto Rico, if a police officer, for example, has to shoot someone, even in the middle of the commitment of a crime, this officer is unarmed until the investigation is over, if during the investigation something arose showing that he/she was negligent or used excessive force, this officer will face a trial were the judge or jury, depends the kind of trial choose by the defense and the officer, will consider if at the moment of the police intervention the officer violated the law (s).


Now that I remember, check this newspaper site in here in Puerto Rico of the San Juan Star, which is the only newspaper in English in here, www.sanjuanstar.com, and look for the following article, about 3 to 1 month ago this matrimony of cops killed the mother and the father of the female spouse and gave 3 shots in the chest to her brother, perhaps that the female spouse killed her brother's wife. Her brother was also a cop. Now they are facing a trial for murdering in 1st degree, arms and many other charges, perhaps both were expelled out from the police. The female spouse's brother survived the 3 shots by miracle and now he's the principal witness.

Answer 4

Come on! the people in the services who are given weapons are fully trained to use them in the right situations and they fully understand the consequences of using them

For your army example, if there is an army road block and you are told to stop and you dont, clearly there will be a reasonable suspicion to take action against that vehicle wont there.

As for the police, someone has already said what happens to them if they shoot someone, they are investigated regardless of how many people have seen it.

Think now how many of our soldiers would be in prison for doing their job if this was the case! the army is there to use force if they think it is necessary otherwise they would have water cannons wouldnt they. You also have to remember that the army is investigated if they shoot someone too, the only difference being that the army has alot more things to shoot someone for than the police.

You also have to remember that the Police in britain rarely actually shoot people. more people are shot by teenagers in britain than shot by police.

Answer 5

The English police force is a law unto its self, if someone dies in custody they close ranks then the wall of silence if you try to get any information.
The police are protected by the Chief constable who is above the Rule of Law and a law unto himself, as we see with the Gung Ho attitude of the Chief Constable of the Met.
The police are the biggest most vicious gang in town, that is why there is very little respect and trust towards the police by the general public.
Yes they should be tried with murder if the suspected perpetrator was unarmed.
The army when at war should not be tried for shooting the enemy, you will find that they don't shoot people willy nilly, they are professional trained soldiers.

Answer 6

I don`t think that the British police are trigger happy , there has been that infamous case of mistaken identity , but other than that our police have a right to defend themselves after all their job is to protect us .. i do not think they should go to court for that . I am the opposite i think all the British police should be armed now goodness knows they need it . Here in Scotland the police don`t carry guns on a normal workday , airports etc yes , on the beat no .

Answer 7

Yes. Especially the two policemen who shot dead the man carrying a table leg in London. They needn't have challenged him then shot him when he natrurally turned round. He was unaware of their presence and they could have walked up to him and easily overpowered him. Shoot first and ask questions later seems to be becoming the norm in Britain, and the police generally get away with it. When the armed police threatened to surrender their licences if one of their own was suspended, they all should have been suspended for bringing the force into disrepute though I suppose disrepute isn't important if you carry a gun.

Answer 8

all police shooting should be thouroughly investigated possibly by an outside agency but trials don't have to go past the DA phase in any cases. (at least in US) can't make it harder for cops than normal people, and we don't want to give them an excuse to try everyone even if it's clearly not them or they're innocent. You have no facts to make a case, you don't parade them past a jury and say what do you think about him.

Answer 9

I don't think they should stand trial but I do think there should be an enquiry. I would not hesitate to shoot a robber that entered my home and I wouldn't expect to stand trial for exterminating this vermin but I would allow the police to check my gun licence

Answer 10

That would never happen in our country. The police need to be harder on some people and the army well they only shoot at people in the war if they shoot at them first so they have the right to shoot back i think. Geneva convention is in place at war so we can just shoot anyone we like. I understand what you are trying to say but it will never happen.

Answer 11

no i don't think they should because f you look at the American police they will take out their weapon and shoot if they pull you over and you drive off. the American police policy on firing your weapon is a lot less strict than when a British officer does. if a british officer shoots he is automatically suspended with full pay from his job pending why his used his weapon. if good cause was found to be the case he is re-instated but if it was found out he shot somone without just cause he will lose his job and face criminal proceedings.