First ever inquest inquiry into a fatal police shooting resumes

[spot]

This is the first time a public inquiry under the 2005 Inquiries Act has been commissioned to examine a death involving police use of lethal force – such deaths are normally scrutinised at an inquest in front of a jury.

We ought, I think, to start a thread on the 2005 shooting by a team from Leman Street of Azelle Rodney who, today's BBC report tells us, was "in the back of a car in Edgware, north London, when a marksman opened fire. He said he thought Mr Rodney was reaching for a gun". For reference, the instant lie at the time was "Police said he was seen holding a firearm in the back seat".

Why does anyone ever trust police reports in the aftermath of a killing out of Leman Street? When did the reports ever turn out to hold truth?

[spot]

Background articles, for reference:

Mother's anger over treatment in Azelle Rodney inquiry

Police lose immunity plea in Azelle Rodney gun death inquiry

'I just want the truth'

Shot man's family want law change

[spot]

BBC News - Azelle Rodney death: Police 'shot suspect six times'

"Within less than a second of the car containing the officer coming to a halt, he opened fire with a carbine. He fired eight shots rapidly. Of these, six shots hit Mr Rodney. He was killed more or less instantly."



BBC News - Azelle Rodney Inquiry: Profile of man shot by police

Two other men, who were also in the car, were arrested at the scene and jailed for drugs and firearms offences in 2006. At their trial the court heard three guns were found in the car and the flat of one of the arrested men was being used to produce drugs. One of the men claimed Mr Rodney had used his flat to produce crack cocaine to cancel out a drugs debt.

Susan Alexander, Mr Rodney's mother, has maintained her son barely knew the two men from whom he had accepted a lift. She said he was not a gangster and only had a minor criminal record.

[koan]

What happened to the days when English Bobbies would shout "Stop! Or I'll yell 'stop' again!!"

[spot]

There's a useful paragraph in the Guardian today.We hope the inquiry will provide answers to specific questions about the reason for the decision to make the arrests, whether the operation was planned and conducted so as to minimise risk of life to all concerned, whether Rodney could have been arrested earlier than the "hard stop" that evening – and if he could have been, why did this not happen?

Other fatal shootings by police have raised questions about possible operational and intelligence failings; we hope that this inquiry, with its wider remit and greater resources than is usual at an inquest, will examine some of these issues. These include the practice of police officers "pooling their recollections" and what, if any, internal investigation was conducted by the Metropolitan Police Service.

Azelle Rodney inquiry must answer tough questions about his death



I do like "pooling their recollections" as a euphemism for criminally conspiring to lie consistently.

[spot]

"The officer who killed him told an inquiry that he opened fire fearing his life and those of his colleagues was in imminent danger". I don't recall any single instance of a police officer from Leman Street giving evidence to a court after killing someone and not saying those identical words. It's farcical to consider it anything but a shibboleth - look at me, I'm an armed policeman, you can't prosecute me for killing on command.

Azelle Rodney's mother says son was 'executed' | UK news | The Guardian

[spot]

There's no sitting today, the Olympics has taken over the streets of London and the inquiry team decided not to brave the crowds.

For those who know how to bookmark, Azelle Rodney Inquiry is the inquiry website.

[spot]

And, wonder of wonders, a trial has commenced. The world might be shifting.

The court heard that a video of the shooting exists because a police officer in a car just behind Long’s vehicle made a recording of the incident for “training purposes”.

The officer who made the video can be heard saying: “We’re going in,” as police started the manoeuvre to force Rodney’s car. The actual shots fired by Long are not captured on the video.

But the jury heard the video recording captured the sound of the eight rapid gunshots. The officer who was recording the video can be heard saying: “Sweet as, sweet as,” as the shots are fired. The shots lasted around two seconds, according to the recording.

Azelle Rodney was shot on sight by Met police officer, court told | UK news | The Guardian



Every deployment by these damnable Leman Street killers should be video-recorded - every one of the team should be wired up for sound and video before they leave their office, with anyone turning theirs off at any stage automatically presumed to be lying when they face trial. Without this video there would be no trial today, and that's the wrong way around. Without an exonerating video there should invariably be a trial, and invariably a presumption that everybody on the team is going lie on oath without batting an eyelid.

Hyped up rogues, every last one of them.

[Smaug]

spot;1480493 wrote: And, wonder of wonders, a trial has commenced. The world might be shifting.

The court heard that a video of the shooting exists because a police officer in a car just behind Long’s vehicle made a recording of the incident for “training purposes”.

The officer who made the video can be heard saying: “We’re going in,” as police started the manoeuvre to force Rodney’s car. The actual shots fired by Long are not captured on the video.

But the jury heard the video recording captured the sound of the eight rapid gunshots. The officer who was recording the video can be heard saying: “Sweet as, sweet as,” as the shots are fired. The shots lasted around two seconds, according to the recording.

Azelle Rodney was shot on sight by Met police officer, court told | UK news | The Guardian



Every deployment by these damnable Leman Street killers should be video-recorded - every one of the team should be wired up for sound and video before they leave their office, with anyone turning theirs off at any stage automatically presumed to be lying when they face trial. Without this video there would be no trial today, and that's the wrong way around. Without an exonerating video there should invariably be a trial, and invariably a presumption that everybody on the team is going lie on oath without batting an eyelid.

Hyped up rogues, every last one of them.


Police state....?

[FourPart]

No doubt there is "you watch my back, I'll watch yours" corruption, just as there is in all walks of life, but to take presumption of guilt to start with is the thin end of the wedge. Sure a witness for the defence may well lie under oath (or even simply be mistaken, genuinely believing that what tehy are saying is true). However, there is also just as strong (if not stronger) a possibility of the prosecution witnesses lying under oath. Presumption of innocence has been the foundation of nearly all civilised countries worldwide & has been for hundreds of years. We don't want to change it now when the individual circumstances make it convenient to do so.

[spot]

I'm trying to find a strong enough threat to prevent police officers from deliberately turning off their recording equipment before, for example, beating the hell out of "a wrong'un". Or shooting a suspect from ambush. It's a fair inference for a jury to draw, if an officer disables his recording equipment, that he does it in order to act without the restraint of being observed.

[Smaug]

FourPart;1480544 wrote: No doubt there is "you watch my back, I'll watch yours" corruption, just as there is in all walks of life, but to take presumption of guilt to start with is the thin end of the wedge. Sure a witness for the defence may well lie under oath (or even simply be mistaken, genuinely believing that what tehy are saying is true). However, there is also just as strong (if not stronger) a possibility of the prosecution witnesses lying under oath. Presumption of innocence has been the foundation of nearly all civilised countries worldwide & has been for hundreds of years. We don't want to change it now when the individual circumstances make it convenient to do so.


I agree, otherwise we might just as well start shouting "sieg heil" now...

[Smaug]

spot;1480545 wrote: I'm trying to find a strong enough threat to prevent police officers from deliberately turning off their recording equipment before, for example, beating the hell out of "a wrong'un". Or shooting a suspect from ambush. It's a fair inference for a jury to draw, if an officer disables his recording equipment, that he does it in order to act without the restraint of being observed.


That's a tricky one. They could issue officers with 2 separate and independent video/sound recording units to guard against malfunction, then insist that only officers wired in "duplex", so-to-speak, can take part in these "stings" and ambushes. If an officer then participates in an action of this nature without his equipment switched on, he's liable for instant dismissal, and possibly jail (not too good being a copper inside...)

[spot]

Firstly, it's every policeman in the country I'm talking about, not just the shooters.

Secondly, I'm not suggesting any change in the law regarding presumptions in court. I do think it's a fair inference that the deliberate disabling of recording equipment with a huge designed-in mean-time-between-failure measured in hundreds of on-duty years, followed immediately by alleged brutality, mayhem or death, signifies beyond reasonable doubt an intention to break the rules and the implied truth of the allegation. It's no different than the removal of an identifying shoulder-tab before getting stuck in at a demonstration, it's a reliable indicator of a rogue cop.

The lack of video in the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell, despite the ambush taking place in a video-equipped tube train at a video-equipped platform, shows the extent to which these killer squads will go to avoid accountability. Does any reasonable observer seriously think these multiple hard-drive recordings weren't systematically and deniably removed on the day by the police themselves, before they could be filed as evidence of what actually happened?

And as for a video of the shooting exists because a police officer in a car just behind Long’s vehicle made a recording of the incident for “training purposes”, I wonder in passing how many more of these snuff movies Leman Street's after-hours drinking club accumulated over the years that have yet to see the light of day as evidence.

[Smaug]

FourPart;1480544 wrote: No doubt there is "you watch my back, I'll watch yours" corruption, just as there is in all walks of life, but to take presumption of guilt to start with is the thin end of the wedge. Sure a witness for the defence may well lie under oath (or even simply be mistaken, genuinely believing that what tehy are saying is true). However, there is also just as strong (if not stronger) a possibility of the prosecution witnesses lying under oath. Presumption of innocence has been the foundation of nearly all civilised countries worldwide & has been for hundreds of years. We don't want to change it now when the individual circumstances make it convenient to do so.


I agree that it should remain "innocent until proven guilty", but cops with their equipment turned off are open to question AND suspicion, guilt or innocence to be decided by trial and jury, as it is for any member of the public involved in such incidents, with or without CCTV/personal camera & sound. It is also possible that vital evidence IS being seized by police, then hidden or destroyed (Hillsborough, Miner's strike, Stonehenge, to cite a few examples)...

The police blamed an intelligence flaw for De Menezes being shot....

The words POLICE and INTELLIGENCE should NEVER appear near one another!!

[spot]

I have an account on a website run primarily for police officers, Police Oracle. My level of access allows me ten articles a month, the content is protected against copying elsewhere by a "content noCopy", it's scarcely a welcoming place.

Anyway, Here's the interesting part of this week's article.One of the defendant's former colleagues, referred to in court by his call sign, E8, was asked this afternoon (June 15) by prosecution QC Max Hill about a briefing given by a "team leader" known as E1.

"E1 stated that the suspects were to be dealt with in the most robust manner, firmly and decisively", E8 said.

Mr Hill asked what this meant.

"I understood this to mean we were to use maximum aggression according to our training, sir", E8 replied.

The intention had been to use a "shock and awe type tactic to stun them into freezing."

"Just to be clear, if there's a briefing from the team leader to deal with them in the most robust manner, does that mean shoot them or not?" asked Mr Hill.

It did not, E8 said.

The court also heard from two other officers, E4 and E5.

The latter described the operation as "a ten out of ten in terms of danger to us."

He said E1's briefing would have "automatically put the hairs on the back of your neck up."

Shortly before leaving the scene at around 8.40pm - two hours after the shooting - E5 looked into the VW Golf, which by this time was unoccupied, and saw a hand gun on the back seat.

"I didn't see the complete handgun. It was partly covered by some yellow plastic. It was the barrel of a self-loading pistol", he said.

Briefing before Azelle Rodney shooting would put hairs on back of your neck up | UK Police News - Police Oracle



(there's no point your clicking on the link, you've inadequate access without registering)

Pumping eight rounds rapid fire into the car would definitely "stun them into freezing", you'd think. Especially if you aim at an occupant.

[Smaug]

spot;1480710 wrote: I have an account on a website run primarily for police officers, Police Oracle. My level of access allows me ten articles a month, the content is protected against copying elsewhere by a "content noCopy", it's scarcely a welcoming place.

Anyway, Here's the interesting part of this week's article.One of the defendant's former colleagues, referred to in court by his call sign, E8, was asked this afternoon (June 15) by prosecution QC Max Hill about a briefing given by a "team leader" known as E1.

"E1 stated that the suspects were to be dealt with in the most robust manner, firmly and decisively", E8 said.

Mr Hill asked what this meant.

"I understood this to mean we were to use maximum aggression according to our training, sir", E8 replied.

The intention had been to use a "shock and awe type tactic to stun them into freezing."

"Just to be clear, if there's a briefing from the team leader to deal with them in the most robust manner, does that mean shoot them or not?" asked Mr Hill.

It did not, E8 said.

The court also heard from two other officers, E4 and E5.

The latter described the operation as "a ten out of ten in terms of danger to us."

He said E1's briefing would have "automatically put the hairs on the back of your neck up."

Shortly before leaving the scene at around 8.40pm - two hours after the shooting - E5 looked into the VW Golf, which by this time was unoccupied, and saw a hand gun on the back seat.

"I didn't see the complete handgun. It was partly covered by some yellow plastic. It was the barrel of a self-loading pistol", he said.

Briefing before Azelle Rodney shooting would put hairs on back of your neck up | UK Police News - Police Oracle



(there's no point your clicking on the link, you've inadequate access without registering)

Pumping eight rounds rapid fire into the car would definitely "stun them into freezing", you'd think. Especially if you aim at an occupant.


Did the police plan beforehand to use max force regardless? If they did, it's little more than an assassination, especially if the car occupants were not given the option to surrender!

[spot]

The jury is now out, considering. It's one of those few occasions when the nation's pulse is being consulted on a matter of importance.

[spot]

And the jury has found the officer not guilty.

That rule of genuine belief remains key - and the law allows for genuine belief being the product of panic or misinformation.

But crucially, the jury, who watched complex forensic reconstructions of the scene, had to be absolutely sure that the officer knew that he didn't need to open fire - and that was a conclusion they ultimately could not reach - bringing this exceptionally long and controversial case to a close.

Met Police officer Anthony Long cleared of Azelle Rodney murder - BBC News

The test of "absolutely sure that the officer knew that he didn't need to open fire" is unattainable. The law should be changed.

The officer allowed himself to be put in a position where Azelle Rodney's death was inevitable. These Leman Street ambushes with hard stops and shooting within "six hundredths of a second" of seeing a target - thank you for the video, gentlemen - can only possibly have one outcome, the death of the person being ambushed. I don't give a damn how often the mantra of "Police firearms officers do not go out intending to shoot people" is rolled out, I find it utterly unconvincing. The Leman Street teams consist entirely of amoral executioners. The law is evidently inadequate at the moment to restrain their abhorrent tactics.

[Smaug]

spot;1481818 wrote: And the jury has found the officer not guilty.

That rule of genuine belief remains key - and the law allows for genuine belief being the product of panic or misinformation.

But crucially, the jury, who watched complex forensic reconstructions of the scene, had to be absolutely sure that the officer knew that he didn't need to open fire - and that was a conclusion they ultimately could not reach - bringing this exceptionally long and controversial case to a close.

Met Police officer Anthony Long cleared of Azelle Rodney murder - BBC News

The test of "absolutely sure that the officer knew that he didn't need to open fire" is unattainable. The law should be changed.

The officer allowed himself to be put in a position where Azelle Rodney's death was inevitable. These Leman Street ambushes with hard stops and shooting within "six hundredths of a second" of seeing a target - thank you for the video, gentlemen - can only possibly have one outcome, the death of the person being ambushed. I don't give a damn how often the mantra of "Police firearms officers do not go out intending to shoot people" is rolled out, I find it utterly unconvincing. The Leman Street teams consist entirely of amoral executioners. The law is evidently inadequate at the moment to restrain their abhorrent tactics.


Will they ever change that law, though? If I was cynical, I'd opine that various "authorities" find it rather convenient the way it is...

Disgraceful. The country, in my opinion, is fast becoming a cess-pool which panders to the worst tenets of modern existence (you can't call it LIVING); lies,amoral behaviour,corruption, debauchery and murder.

[FourPart]

The wording is no real different to the "Beyond reasonable shadow of doubt" that we're all used to.

The fact remains now, though, that he has been found innocent, and that should be an end to the matter, rather than continuing to keep him going through "Trial By Media". It's been through due process & that's that.

[spot]

FourPart;1481839 wrote: The wording is no real different to the "Beyond reasonable shadow of doubt" that we're all used to.
Of course it is. There's beyond reasonable that a testable event happened, and then there's this which is "that the officer knew that he didn't need to open fire". How on earth do you determine that an opinion was actually held instead of merely claimed in retrospect. How is that testable.

As for "trial by media", I've put up a post announcing the verdict and my opinion of the law as it stands. What I've said about the officers working out of Leman Street has been consistent for years. The process needs to be brought within a more reasonable legal framework than exists at the moment. My opinion of Anthony Long is no different than my opinion of anyone working on those armed units.

[FourPart]

By Trial By Media I mean the way that the media will string it out for as long as they possibly can. Why let the facts get in the way of a good story?

As for a trial of what was on someone's mind. That's another thing altogether. The only person who can have any idea of what was on his mind is the person in question, and even that is likely to be none to clear from the heat of the moment. A believed state of mind is not evidence, and without supporting evidence to the contrary is nothing but conjecture.

[spot]

FourPart;1481844 wrote: A believed state of mind is not evidenceSadly, as you will have seen from this trial, it's the only evidence which had any effect at all on the verdict. The officer gave evidence as to his state of mind and, in consequence of that evidence and nothing else, the jury was totally unable to convict him.

[FourPart]

And quite rightly so. Without hard evidence to the contrary a person remains Innocent Until Proven Guilty, not Innocent Until Proven Innocent Until We Can Change The Law So We Can Make Him Look Guilty.

[spot]

FourPart;1481863 wrote: And quite rightly so. Without hard evidence to the contrary a person remains Innocent Until Proven Guilty, not Innocent Until Proven Innocent Until We Can Change The Law So We Can Make Him Look Guilty.


You seem oblivious to the fact that a man is dead, while his killer has pronounced on oath a get-out-of-jail-free formula.

[FourPart]

Of course I'm not oblivious to it. A person was killed. There were other factors in the case as to why he was killed though. You seem oblivious to how complex the situation really was, seeing everything as being cut & dried. I don't believe you were at the incident, were you? The actual eye witness testimony from those that were conflicts with others. The forensic evidence, however, which is hard evidence & not based on hearsay or conjecture painted a slightly different story, without all the naturally emotive calls from everyone else. When you're driving along & someone pulls out in front of you your first instinct is to slam the brakes on. You are questioned on what you were thinking at the time & the moments immediately before & after the incident. How many people did you see that witnessed the event. What make or colour was the car on the opposite side of the road? Did you car have a passenger? There's no way you can answer any of these questions. You see the danger. You react. Then, at some later date someone starts to make up things about what you were thinking, such as "Oh, hang on - I'm doing 50 in a 30 zone. Id best slow down quick before the speed camera catches me". Then, coincidentally, some car pulls out in front just at the same time as you hit the brakes to avoid being snapped by the speed camera. The point is that YOU probably couldn't remember what you were thinking at the time, so there's no way that anyone else can.

The only evidence any of us have seen have been the newspaper reports. They are bound to hype everything up to whatever sells papers the best. This is the Trial By Media. What is worse though, is that after a while the general public tend to take all this hyped spin as being factual.

[spot]

The hard evidence without which the case could not have been brought in the first place is the video recording of the event, the sound-track to which allowed the exact timing of events to be presented. That video recording has nothing to do with hyped-up spin. It demonstrates exactly how little time elapsed between the target appearing in view of the shooter and the police gun first firing.

That time period is not long enough for a rational evaluation to have happened. It means "I thought he was armed" or "I thought he was going to shoot" was not based on observation, merely (if true) on a mistaken mental belief.

The law as it stands is that a mistaken mental belief provides total exoneration for the killing. I believe that needs now to be changed, because any officer can claim and maintain such a belief and be guaranteed a not guilty verdict.

[FourPart]

What the real problem is is the culture that brought it about in the first place. That of everyone having guns, putting everyone on a hair trigger for basic survival. The scenario here is a case of kill or be killed. Hesitation could mean letting the other guy getting the first shot in. What really needs doing is not to change the rules as to how to deal with the aftermath. By then it's too late. The deed has been done & the surviving party could believe that they were perfectly justified in their actions, but other people say that he doesn't really believe that & that he's just saying that to get off. There's no way that can be proved (at least not yet - mind probes may yet be invented). The solution is to change the scenario. Look to the root cause of the situation. Guns. America is world famous for its out of control gun culture. There are plenty of other countries which have the right for their citizens to possess firearms, but none of them have the level of violence as that found in America. America needs to take a step back & deal with the underlying problem rather than trying to patch over the cracks & constantly coming up with excuses as to why it can't be done.

[spot]

Over a hundred Metropolitan Police officers handed in their firearms licence this week in protest against the prosecution of one of their fraternity appearing in court on a murder charge.

Here's a transcript off my phone of Today's Radio 4 interview with a serving officer, though I can't give a link to the program and anyway, TL/DR;:

Martha Karney: There is clearly alarm this morning about the numbers of armed officers angry enough about the murder charge against a colleague to stand down from firearms duties. More than a hundred, the BBC has been told, more according to some of today's papers. The Home Secretary says she wants to do everything in her power to support "our brave firearms officers", and the Metropolitan Police Chief say she wants the review she has announced to look at the policies and practices of the Police Watchdog and the Crown Prosecution Service, the threshold for investigating police pursuits and the use of force. One former officer who left the Met Specialist Firearms Command only a few months ago has been talking to us and I asked first what he was hearing from former colleagues.

Former Officer : What's obvious to me is that they're not acting out of anger or petulance and this is not a kind of coordinated protest, this is individuals who have partners and families and who are incredibly committed to their profession. They train very hard to to do a good job and they're genuinely concerned that, to be honest, it's not really worth it anymore. The risk to them and their liberty and to their families is just too great so, although it's very troubling, I've been very acceptable to see. The way this is, I'm not all surprised my family would be would be too great to the family the the legal risk that you might be taking the legal risk should I do the the thing that I'm trained to do in that circumstance if I have no other option in order to save life than to discharge a firearm and ultimately shoot someone the risk that I'll be unfairly treated in an unfair process following that, the risk of that to my family the stress at the the the blow to mental health, personal relationships, it just wouldn't be worth it. I didn't join the police service when I did to make money, clearly. I did it because I I guess I thought that there was real self-worth and value to be had from protecting people particularly in the most dangerous and robust contacts and situations, but that's only endurable if you feel you're going to be treated fairly when the worst should happen and you end up having to shoot someone. I think that would be a very sad day for policing in the UK that we're forced to resort to putting troops on the street and I think that should be a huge wake up call to everyone. Troops are highly capable but there's a reason they're soldiers and not police officers and I think it, as I said, is huge then I don't know much about the obvious thing but any action that that starts to really dig deep into into what police officers are really there for and how we can protect them to keep other people safe, I welcome any review of that kind so my hope is that a national conversation on what the police are there for and how we can best protect them to do their job fairly and capably. I think that can only be a good thing to answer and I don't think you'll find it on police officers who are currently serving or did serve or even any soldiers that would be prepared to ask that. All I would say is that in general terms it would stagger people how infrequently there are police officers actually by their weapons of the thousands and thousands for example in the map in London thousands of firearms incidents that armed officers attend every year it's a tiny tiny fraction of those incidents where shots actually get fired. I often think people see maybe clips on social media or hear stories from elsewhere in the world where the context is very different and there's an element of shoehorning that context into what we see here when in reality my message really to your listeners it is that your police service shoots people so infrequently that it would surprise people.

Summary: Not many shots ever fired, very few deaths, obviously not a kind of coordinated protest, the CPS and independent complaints authority should operate different criteria for police than for the public.

The reality is they already do operate different criteria for police than for the public but they shouldn't. This is only the second ever prosecution of a firearms officer for murder after firing on duty, and the first one resulted in an acquittal.

Firearms officers, as standard recognized practice, meet in private before interview following any use of a firearm on duty. One presumes, reasonably, this is so they can create a coherent story of innocence and to write up their logs in unison, and it is scandalous that this is ever allowed. They then answer written interview questions with written personal responses. How any investigation can pretend to winnow out the truth in the face of a concerted massaging of the facts is a puzzle, not that I think the investigators would be anything other than leaning in favour of their colleagues to begin with.

This practice of collusion should automatically and invariably result in a charge of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice against everyone present at the preliminary private meeting, including the station staff who knowingly allow that to happen in the first place without submitting a formal written protest. Nothing is more likely to make firearms officers think they are above the law than that they are treated as though they are above the law, and consequently inadequately investigated, following a death at the hand of a firearms officer.

And "this is not a kind of coordinated protest"? Seriously? That's a bit like saying watch me while I tell lies throughout the interview.

As for "my message really to your listeners it is that your police service shoots people so infrequently that it would surprise people", words fail me. It's more like a scripted line from A Clockwork Orange than an intelligent contribution to a news report.