it appears most for one reason or another have lost there full trust in the police andy. but again i don't be leave it was an organized hit.
You may be right. At best I suspect (note the uncertainty here) that someone made a mistake and is not coming clean. That is the most likely (uncertainty again) explanation for those inconsistencies.
i am lucky enough to say that i have a good mate that is a retired police officer that has had many rolls in the force, diving, armed and such like, he restores my faith on a daily basis, we discus regularly what i read on here regarding the police. what worries him is that on a forum full of intelligent and law abiding people there is so much distrust but agrees that some is justified.
I can't understand this general Police and Andy b bashing whatsoever, I now also work for one of the emergency services and trust me,we have to deal with the very best and the very worse in people.There are increasingly more robust processes with dealing with the occasionally bad penny but to suggest or intimate that its worse than that is very disingenuous to the rest of us who do are very best in what is not a job but a vocation.
you can bash the cops as much as you want and ill agree with some of it and argue with the other, but trust me, you won't bash me...:wink:
Really?? Have you ever carried a firearm as part of your job? Have you ever been shot at? Have you ever had a gun pointed at you? If you look into it, having a weapon pointed at you is enough justification for the police to shoot someone. I for one will shed no tears that a very bad and dangerous man has been removed from society. I have no doubt the officer involved had a very good reason for opening fire. Do you really think he went to work that day with the intention of killing someone? I can't even imagine the amount of stress him and his family have had to go through and are still going through.
If you know that you have done nothing wrong, honesty if probably the best course of action - regardless whether you are a police officer, a lawyer, or anybody else. If you have made a mistake and thus fear prosecution though, your best course may be to rely on the famous "right to remain silent". The downside of that strategy is that if you are prosecuted anyway, and give evidence of some sort in your defence, you then have to account for not having given that story in the first place. Bit of a dilemma, eh?
Pete you cannot honestly believe that somebody choosing to remain silent during interview then giving an account at court is penalised, I have never ever known that to happen in all the cases I got to crown or mags. The majority of clued up criminals always fail to give an account and at best give a written statement, even if it's upon the advice of the brief and you give an R v Argent warning
I had in mind serious cases, e.g. if the defence runs an alibi which was not mentioned before, it is legitimate for the prosecution to ask why not in XX.
I have no idea why he pulled the trigger? Do you? If so, you are a very special person. I am more than happy that the shit stain on society duggan is dead. You seem to think you know how the police officer was thinking. I don't, and more to the point nor do you.
Pete, I understand that you are referring to serious cases and in my time I was lead interviewer for murder cases, child sexual exploitation cases, rapists, people traffickers as well as being trained to the highest level in interviews and never did I see or was I made aware of any further tariff or any consequence to failing to answer then supplying a defence/alibi at court. I understand theoretically you can but in reality and practice ( in my experience) it never happens.
You've lost me, not difficult I know. Yes, I have an idea/no doubt that was the case. I don't recall stating a fact, as no one on this forum will be in possession of the facts. However, I do base my opinion on an awful lot of time around firearms.
To err is part of being human. I don't think we should crucify someone who makes an 'honest' mistake. Hold people to account by all means but when we put loaded weapons in people's hands and ask them to defend us we have to share some of the responsibility when things go wrong, as they inevitably will.
Its the middle bit of the caution " if you do not mention now something you later rely on in court" If a suspect remains silent when interviewed and then comes up with a story that could have been given in interview then the judge can direct the jury to make there own mind up as to whether they are telling the truth and whether they had a good reason to remain silent when interviewed. The court cannot draw inferences from silence if the suspect wasn't represented in interview
