Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Police liable for shooting innocent victim?? Watch

    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JackT180)
    Well clearly if he intends to shoot the defendant, misses and kills somebody else that would amount to negligence..
    Hmm

    Possibly, but I think you are jumping to conclusions. If a policeman shot at someone he thought was a terrorist about to blow up multiple people, and he misses and hits an innocent, that almost certainly is not negligent.

    Having re-read the question, and am surprised I didn't notice this before - it can't be manslaughter because the victim did not die!!!!!

    (Original post by sweetgyal24)
    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.
    Unless I've badly misread the question, there is no intent and there is no dead body so DR is not relevant - DR is only a defence to murder. How about mistake or necessity depending on the facts?

    (Original post by sweetgyal24)
    deaf I know it's a typo lol. Can I PM you the actual question please? You'll probably be able to understand my question better

    Thanks for the advice though, much appreciated !!
    I remember v. little criminal I'm afraid, best to keep it to the forum where ppl who are studying criminal can help
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    Hmm

    Possibly, but I think you are jumping to conclusions. If a policeman shot at someone he thought was a terrorist about to blow up multiple people, and he misses and hits an innocent, that almost certainly is not negligent.

    Having re-read the question, and am surprised I didn't notice this before - it can't be manslaughter because the victim did not die!!!!!
    Oc course its negligent, he owes a duty of care, as he is a police officer, so owes all members of the public a duty, and breaches this duty clearly by shooting an innocent member of the public. He can't be liable for any other offence than GNM, as he doesn't intend to cause any harm to the vicitm, and its certainly not UDAM. Also the victim does die, as the OP specifies this in a later post further down the page.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JackT180)
    Oc course its negligent, he owes a duty of care, as he is a police officer, so owes all members of the public a duty, and breaches this duty clearly by shooting an innocent member of the public. He can't be liable for any other offence than GNM, as he doesn't intend to cause any harm to the vicitm, and its certainly not UDAM. Also the victim does die, as the OP specifies this in a later post further down the page.
    Fair point re: the death.

    I don't think it follows from the fact that there is a duty of care that said duty of care was breached. Shooting a member of the public isn't enough to demonstrate negligence without further information. What if the gun malfunctioned and fired before the officer took aim? What if the officer thought it was a terrorist and took a sensible calculated risk? Its likely that the officer was negligent but I don't think you have enough facts to say this for sure.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    Fair point re: the death.

    I don't think it follows from the fact that there is a duty of care that said duty of care was breached. Shooting a member of the public isn't enough to demonstrate negligence without further information. What if the gun malfunctioned and fired before the officer took aim? What if the officer thought it was a terrorist and took a sensible calculated risk? Its likely that the officer was negligent but I don't think you have enough facts to say this for sure.
    True, but with the information given by the OP, it suggests negligence, but yes, it's true that if there are other circumstances not mentioned by the OP, then it may not amount to negligence, or at least would have to be discussed
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sweetgyal24)
    I didn't even consider this option! :eek:
    Thank you Are you studying Law at uni ?

    yes, the V/ innocent person did eventually die, can I PM you the question if that helps?
    No, I'm not studying law at uni at the moment. Don't think I'll be able to help that much, but you can PM me the question if you like.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nick369)
    If the police officer accidently shot the innocent person wouldn't it be gross negligence manslaughter (assuming the person died here)?
    Yes, the victim eventually died so gross negligence could be a possibility



    However, others (Jacketpotato) said that it wouldn't be GN if the V died? :confused:

    Let me go and reread his post agen.. thanks for your input anyway
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JackT180)
    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 police were chasing him initially because they had witnessed him assaulting his girlfriend!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JackT180)
    Well clearly if he intends to shoot the defendant, misses and kills somebody else that would amount to negligence..
    Can you not use transferred malice for murder then? :confused:
    I thought it was like a strict liability crime? As in your not completely guilty if you get what I mean
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sweetgyal24)
    The police were chasing him initially because they had witnessed him assaulting his girlfriend!
    Well then he would only be liable for Common Assault contrary to Common Law and Section 39of the Criminal Justice Act 1988

    (Original post by sweetgyal24)
    Can you not use transferred malice for murder then? :confused:
    I thought it was like a strict liability crime? As in your not completely guilty if you get what I mean
    And no, im not certain but don't believe that transferred malice applies to murder, although you'll have to check this up. It will certainly not be a crime of strict liabilityy as this requires literally no mens rea at all, and he definitely had mens rea as he pulled the trigger in an attempt to apprehend the defendant. In all, just go through the requirements for GNM, and it should satisfy as long as there isn't any issues you haven't raised
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sweetgyal24)
    DOE? :confused: Thank you I will consider the investigation and all that
    Duke of Edinburgh award
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hi, I'm studying criminal law on the LLB at King's, I'd be happy to help in private
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lesbionic)
    Hi, I'm studying criminal law on the LLB at King's, I'd be happy to help in private
    sent it to you. Sorry for the late reply. much appreciated!!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    In reality, the copper would probably get off with a slap on the wrist on thats in.
    Of course, this is coming from someone who isn't studying law, but has just observed many times when nothing has been done for various incidents.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nick369)
    If the police officer accidently shot the innocent person wouldn't it be gross negligence manslaughter (assuming the person died here)?
    I agree with this.

    Furthermore, the AFO (Authorised Firearm Officer) would likely be relieved of his position as a firearms officer at best, or at worst, be sacked from the police service altogether.


    To be authorised to carry a firearm in the Constabulary you have to pass lots of tests and even when you've passed them you have 'top up tests', so the actual scenario is highly unlikely.


    But in the event that an AFO 'missed', yeah, it'd probably be negligence more than anything else.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Well i Think that there is a case for Gross negligence manslaughter and as the police fired at a man who was running away and therefore not an immediate threat, doesn't that throw away any claim for extenuating circumstances on there side (sentencing).

    And no the malice would not be transferable to the defendant as it was not foreseeable that the policeman would shoot at the defendant leading to the death of another person, plus the fact that the man was partially death so colndt hear rthem telling him to stop.

    *TBH the whole scenario is a bit bad, why in the world wold a policeman shoot at somebody who has just committed ASSAULT, it would be more believable if it was GBH or murder*
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    In reality, the copper would probably get off with a slap on the wrist on thats in.
    Of course, this is coming from someone who isn't studying law, but has just observed many times when nothing has been done for various incidents.
    But someone innocent was killed as a result of his reckless behaviour!
    ohh, sorry your excused
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JohnC2211)
    I agree with this.

    Furthermore, the AFO (Authorised Firearm Officer) would likely be relieved of his position as a firearms officer at best, or at worst, be sacked from the police service altogether.


    To be authorised to carry a firearm in the Constabulary you have to pass lots of tests and even when you've passed them you have 'top up tests', so the actual scenario is highly unlikely.


    But in the event that an AFO 'missed', yeah, it'd probably be negligence more than anything else.
    Authorised firearm officer? that's new to me. I will research it thanks Are you doing Law at uni?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dlaleye)
    Well i Think that there is a case for Gross negligence manslaughter and as the police fired at a man who was running away and therefore not an immediate threat, doesn't that throw away any claim for extenuating circumstances on there side (sentencing).

    And no the malice would not be transferable to the defendant as it was not foreseeable that the policeman would shoot at the defendant leading to the death of another person, plus the fact that the man was partially death so colndt hear rthem telling him to stop.

    *TBH the whole scenario is a bit bad, why in the world wold a policeman shoot at somebody who has just committed ASSAULT, it would be more believable if it was GBH or murder*
    Majority are saying GNM so it must be right! what do you mean by any claim for extenuating circumstances? :confused:
    another typo- deaf
    can I PM you the whole scenario if that makes sense?
    Are you doing Lat at uni? Sorry for all the ?'s
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sweetgyal24)
    Authorised firearm officer? that's new to me. I will research it thanks Are you doing Law at uni?

    I am yes, although we haven't started Criminal Law yet.


    When you join the police service you start off as an ordinary (unarmed) PC, and can apply for firearms training. Upon completion of the relevant tests (medical, fitness, psychological etc) you will be granted AFO status. This means that you are authorised to carry a firearm. Depending on the situation you may be armed with a Hechler and Koch MP5 sub machine gun, a Glock 17 9mm semi automatic pistol, or recently, a G36C carbine assault rifle.

    Just because you're an AFO however, it doesn't mean you always carry your gun. You have to be authorised to do so by an "appropriate authorising officer" which is usually the Chief Inspector.


    The use of firearms is outlined in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, and the Human Rights Act.


    An interesting sidenote which you may want to mention in your essay for bonus marks is that several ex-SAS soldiers have came out and said that the training that AFOs receive is poor. This can be evidenced by various cases on the subject. I can't remember the exact name of the case but there was an instance where SEVEN police officers open fired on a solicitor who was brandishing a shotgun. Only FIVE hit their target.

    Hope I've helped.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    This is going to be fact-specific, but generally, it is not going to be murder. Think about the mens rea element of murder. If you could post the question, I will do my best, but it's been two years nearly since I did criminal!
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.