Half a percent

Bear in mind that I'm not normally one to leap to the defence of the police:

"Rotated 110 degrees away"
...possibly in the manner of someone who's not been given time to react properly to an initial challenge before being shot by surprise.

*Or* possibly in the manner of someone who's not entirely on the ball (on the way home from the pub), has just realised he's about to be shot (thinks, shit they mean *me*) & is flinching?

"carrying a [coffee]table leg in a poly bag"

How was he holding the bag? Obviously if it was being held in the orthodox way by the handles, there would be no question of a threat. OTOH If it was wrapped round the table leg & stuck under his arm there'd be no way for the officers to identify it as not being the gun they were expecting from their tip-off.

There's two way of painting these two facts that could make the officers look either obviously guilty, or obviously innocent.

What we need to know is how he was challenged, and what it was about his reaction that prompted the officers to fire.

From:

zotz

The officers testified that he had turned to face them and was still doing so, as far as I can tell. It's this inconsistency that lead to the inquest jury's verdict.

The general reporting is more that there is absolutely no question of the officers having fired too early, when in fact the forensic evidence does raise precisely this question (but, as you say, doesn't answer it).

Even with the best-trained, calmest people, there are going to be times when circumstances conspire. This may very well be one of those times. I don't quite understand the way it's being reported, though. This strikes me as an entirely relevant point that is being almost entirely ignored.

From:

This strikes me as an entirely relevant point that is being almost entirely ignored.

It would be nice to get an informed opinion of exactly what it's likely to imply, yes.

From:

dennyd.livejournal.com

I'm sure I read somewhere that he was "brandishing" the table leg at them, but I can't find it now. I did get the impression it was more in a 'belligerent drunk with blunt instrument' manner rather than 'loaded weapon', although that's possibly just how I read it at the time.

From:

My point, really, was that there's been enough leeway her for the story to be painted either way.

If the guy was pissed & lairy, that would make the call even harder...

From:

As I recall from the reporting at the time, he'd stopped for a single pint on his way home and was not drunk.

From:

I dunno about you but if a couple of armed police told me to drop the gun and raise my hands I would drop everything I was carrying and, well, raise my hands.

Why didn't this happen?

From:

Because he wasn't carrying a gun and he had no reason to think they were talking to him, I guess.

From:

If two coppers shouted "Drop the Gun" within earshot while you were walking down the street, even if you thought they didn't mean you, wouldn't you at least look around to see where they were and what was going on? You'd completely ignore them twice???

From:

zotz

Turning doesn't seem to have done him much good when he did get round to it.

From:

Because he had already ignored them twice. I believe they have to give a suspect two verbal warnings, after which they can apprehend him. If I were in their position and genuinely believed he had a shotgun, I'd be crapping myself if he spun around after ignoring both my challenges.

From:

zotz

Yes, but one of the other questions was how far he'd turned, and in what manner. The path report contradicted what the officers had said about that, which makes things much more complicated.

From:

And even the best-trained eye-witnesses often genuinely remember things the way they *should* have happened, rather than the way they did. Which reminds me: were there any other witnesses? I assume not...

From:

serpentstar.livejournal.com

Absolutely. It's a nightmarishly difficult position to be in, that of the police in this case (and I'm not usually the first to defend police either). As far as they knew, they were about to get blasted with a shotgun. From their perspective, they had to shoot him before he opened fire. Waiting till he'd turned all the way round... well, by that point they could be dead. It doesn't seem entirely unreasonable if they fired as he was turning, because the turning towards them (without dropping the apparent gun) must have been seen as a threat in itself.

That's not to say it was the poor bloke's fault either, of course. Unfortunately it just appears to have been one of those things, an accident that probably couldn't have been avoided.

From:

Agreed. I believe there was no malicious intent on the part of anyone involved, nor any real negligence. It was just a tragic mistake.

From:

Actually, if I heard someone yelling "Drop the gun!" my first instinct would be to run away as quickly as possible.

He was not a terrorist with a gun. He was an ordinary man going about his business and committing no crime.
Trying to blame him for what happenned is both wrong and futile.

Possibly blaming whatever idiot told the police he had a shotgun would be reasonable, but blaming the victim himself is not even remotely reasonable.

From:

"Actually, if I heard someone yelling "Drop the gun!" my first instinct would be to run away as quickly as possible."

Yeah but in which direction? If you haven't taken stock of the situation then you have no idea where the Police are or where the "gunman" is. Think about it.

"blaming the victim himself is not even remotely reasonable"

I'm not blaming the victim, just trying to understand what happened and why he didn't react to the Police. Seems a bit...odd. The only thing I can think of is that he thought they were chavs pissing about, if they were behind him, and he thought he'd ignore them and they might bugger off.

From:

> just trying to understand what happened and why he didn't react to the Police

I would imagine that he didn't react to them because they were yelling "drop the gun" and he knew he didn't have a gun.

As you say, he might have thought it was a wind up and been ignoring it.

> Yeah but in which direction?

Round the nearest corner if there was one close enough.

Otherwise ducking behind something like a wheelie bin or a car might be a normal reaction to believing that there was someone with a gun in the street.

From:

zotz

I get the impression that he was holding it by one end, such as one might hold a sawn-off if one had one. I don't think there's any doubt that they believed it - the spurious tip-off sounds like it was very definite (and I hope that somebody's sorry as hell about having done that).

From:

juudes.livejournal.com

I think a pertinent point was that the informer had mistaken Mr Stanley's Scottish accent for an Irish one, which says quite a lot about how Celts, and Irish people in particular, are viewed by the general population.

From:

Not really - it just says that the same twat who couldn't tell a table-leg from a shotgun couldn't tell an Irishman from a Scot.

From:

juudes.livejournal.com

If the chap had been English, would anyone have leapt to the conclusion that he was carrying a shotgun?

From:

Who knows?

His thought's might've gone "There's someone with a funny accent, possibly Irish...that thing he's carrying must be a saw-off, better call the Fuzz" or maybe "That guy's carrying something that looks like it could be a shotgun in that bag...best call the police to check it out...right, I need to give the a description..."

One of the first things he'd say to describe the man would be *anything* that marked him out from the (English) majority. Like his accent.

Whatever, you can't infer from the actions of a single, unidentified person that the English public in general thinks all Celts are terrorists. I think that's reaching *just* a little...

From:

zoo-music-girl.livejournal.com

I do hope London follows suit. A smoking ban would be wonderful.

I have replied to your email btw, if you haven't had my reply then my lovely webmail is playing silly buggers. :(

From:

zotz

I do hope London follows suit.

Well, it does seem to be the coming thing, and you know what Londoners are like about being fashionable.

I have replied to your email

Indeed, and it has arrived safely. A reply will follow soon.

From: