Paul Whitters, 15, was shot in the head with a plastic bullet.
Following a four-year investigation, the police Ombudsman said the firing of the baton round was wrong and unjustifiable.
The police ombudsman said no warning was given and it was fired at less than the permissible range of 20 metres. The officer involved refused to speak to her investigators
2007-04-18 03:00:40 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
Cos its one law for them and another one for us.
2007-04-18 03:04:55 · answer #1 · answered by Mas 7 · 3⤊ 8⤋
Could be because in the heat of a situation, it's difficult to judge 20 metres and not always possible to give a warning.
Having been in similar situations myself with the use of an incapacitant spray, the giving of a warning is advised when spraying but not always possible or necessary. Judging distances is not always easy when there are many other factors to consider like your own and other peoples fear, darkness, previous experience, weapons, environment etc etc etc. A police officer very often has to make split second decisions on a course of action. These could be the reasons the officer was not charged.
In fairness to everyone here, not all the facts about this case are listed here and there's probably a lot more to it that would have an impact on a reasonable answer to a question with limited information.
2007-04-18 10:53:44 · answer #2 · answered by Ian UK 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
First, This incident happened in 1981. The four year investigation completed in 1985 and you're questioning what happened 20 years ago?
Second, read the web site. The family of Paul Whitters states the matter went before a jury and no couse was found to charge the officer.
I stand corrected. Thank you donzy_xxx
2007-04-18 10:03:22 · answer #3 · answered by steve_1185 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Ian i appreciate that a police officer very often has to make split second decisions on a course of action and that all the facts about this case may not be listed. However, why did the policeman not co-operate with the investigation in the first place to help obtain these?
Steve, although the investigation happened in 1982, it was only properly investiageted recently from 2003-2007. the investigation found that the RUC failed to make any door-to-door inquiries and did not talk to seven eyewitnesses who later came forward. Maybe if they had done this the investigation would have been completed in 1985.
2007-04-18 23:05:09 · answer #4 · answered by donzy_xxx 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The fact that it took four years to come to a decision just goes to demonstrate how hard the system trys to find reasons to prosecute police officers.
Police officers not only face criminal procedings but civil prosecution and internal discipliary procedures as well as independant investigations by the IPCC, usually fuelled by ill advised media hysteria and public ignorance.
You can guarantee that if there is the slightest element of provable criminal intent or negligence, a police officer will be prosecuted. Determination of guilt comes down to the courts.
2007-04-18 22:35:49 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Though I don't normally respond to this type of comment, I can't help but wonder why this young man was engaged in the activities that prompted the response in the first place.
It's sad that this world has so much anger and violence. Nobody desires to see anybody, let alone our youth, harmed in such a manner.
Yet, I've always thought that when you dance with the devil...you're sure to get burnt!
My prayers are with this young man, his family, and all those involved.
2007-04-18 03:14:12 · answer #6 · answered by KC V ™ 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
this case is now 26 years old and besides the kids was throwing rocks at the police when he was shot, so he doesnt really deservce any sympathy. Simply put if he hadnt been doing it he wouldnt have been shot. And for any members of our nationalist community who dont believe he was throwing stones at the police heres a republican website that even confirms he was http://www.relativesforjustice.com/?pid=34
2007-04-19 04:20:25 · answer #7 · answered by vdv_desantnik 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Innocent until proven guilty? The officer is not required to incriminate herself. The police ombudsman is not a court of law. Why did it take 4 years?
What was Paul Whitters doing when he was "neutralized"?
2007-04-18 03:09:43 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 5⤋
I’m not familiar with this case so I cannot truly answer the question. However I believe our world would be a pretty scary place if there where no police around to deal with the ‘bad’ elements of human behavior.
2007-04-18 03:35:26 · answer #9 · answered by Binder D 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
This is typical of the police they can murder anyone and get away with it, the only real surprise is why who are surprised at this as this is the way the law works in this country.
2007-04-18 07:27:06 · answer #10 · answered by Stephen P 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
If it was in China or Russia he would have died of lead poisoning not plastic wounds.
2007-04-18 04:21:45 · answer #11 · answered by des c 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋