Police liable for shooting innocent victim??

Police shoot INNOCENT victim = Police are guilty

Case dismissed, life sentance.

Police shoot INNOCENT victim = Police are guilty

Case dismissed, life sentance.

You need to refer to the Police are Guilty when Anything Goes Wrong Act 2005.

So they were trying to shoot the deaf guy, who was guilty, but ended up shooting some innocent dude?

How would this even happen? why would you even come up with this question/how bored are you?

Why am I even replying?

If you were given a scenario which stated that a "man was hard of hearing", would you assume that he was deaf? (No offence to anyone). Also, if the police told him to stop running and he didn't and someone else was injured as a result of the policeman's shot, it would surely be transferred malice? (that was a long sentence).. Would the defendant still be guilty because of this other persin being shot by the police?? or would the police be liable?

Are there any recent cases on the police shooting innocent victims by mistake as a result of chasing after the actual criminals?

What about causation issues- factual or legal and intervening acts?

What about the sentence on the police, court and procedure? The other victim that was shot in the eye was blinded..

I was thinking of bringing in defences in favour for the defendant, insanity or diminished responsibility. its one or the other, but not sure which.

Sorry if this sounds confusing, but if you want me to provide more info, PM me

Any help would really be appreciated, thanks in ad xx

I can surely sense sarcasm here...

Life sentence?? I might just have to post the whole question after all.. anyone want me to PM it? Please let me know

Whaaaat its an actual scenario??!! Damnn.. That's one unlucky guy.. if its for your coursework Im not the best person to ask as I have no knowledge of the law at all lool

but if you want my opinion then i think its an unfortunate mistake. the police were obviously prepared to shoot this guy because he posed a significant risk, so if they had not shot him then they would have a much worse scenario on their hands. they cant really be found guilty of anything by that can they? maybe of careless shooting? if theres such thing..

Is this in criminal law, or in tort? I know nothing of the former, but might be able to give a little guidance for tort.

Yeah there was :P or he's just really dumb !




Nah I was just ****ing about, approaching the question/case how someone with no background of law would.

He shot him, so he's guilty, he goes to jail < Kinda thinking.

If the police officer accidently shot the innocent person wouldn't it be gross negligence manslaughter (assuming the person died here)?

Hard of hearing is not the same as being death but I'm not sure it matters

Don't overthink it. Systematically go through each and every requirement, in list format, for each crime that you think might have been committed by anybody in the scenario.

I took a class with for DOE with a police inspector who said (in NI) policemen are only allowed to use a gun if they believe that they or the people around them are in life-threatening danger. Once they discharge a weapon they are immediately suspended until an investigation is over. If they used a weapon with out due care ( shooting a criminal when it wasn't needed - regardless if he/she was innocent or guilty) he would face criminal proceedings and possibly jail.

The Police officer would be liable for Gross Negligence Manslaughter and fits all the requirements. The defendant certainly isn't liable, not his fault that the police cant shoot, he'd only be liable for the original offence he commited, and was being pursued for.

The Op hasn't posted any facts that suggest negligence...