[Sir Bert Preast]

Er, that would depend on if you were ordered to do the wrong thing or not. If a firearms team is ordered to kill someone, and they kill the person they were ordered to it's a tad unfair to jail them for it, no?

[DJ]

Originally posted by Sir Bert Preast:
Er, that would depend on if you were ordered to do the wrong thing or not. If a firearms team is ordered to kill someone, and they kill the person they were ordered to it's a tad unfair to jail them for it, no?

'Befehl ist Befehl' was laughed out of court in the Nürnberg trials and rightfully so. There is a point where a person is responsible for his actions and it's his own responsibility to judge where he draws the line.

[Sir Bert Preast]

Don't be such a ****ing ****. How the **** is participation in mass murder in any way equivalent to a policeman being ordered to take down a suspected bomber?

Maybe if they were now up to their ten thousandth bomber you may have a point, but as the count is one stop being a hairy boxheaded twat, eh?

[DJ]

If a firearms team is ordered to kill someone, and they kill the person they were ordered to it's a tad unfair to jail them for it, no?

It's you who made the sweeping statement. These people murdered a person who was by no stretch of the imagination doing anything threatening. If they lack the brains or moral fiber to not coldly execute a person in those circumstances, they deserve life in prison, nothing else.

[Sir Bert Preast]

What? How is it murder? Would you say an executioner who executes a man later found to have been innocent is a murderer?

[DJ]

Originally posted by Sir Bert Preast:
What? How is it murder? Would you say an executioner who executes a man later found to have been innocent is a murderer?

That indeed is one of the major flaws of the dp, but that's a different discussion.

In this particular case, the person wasn't executed after a trial, the person was executed for looking, in the eyes of some totally inapt clowns, like a terrorist.

[Sir Bert Preast]

What's a terrorist look like then? Do you expect the police to always try to arrest and bring to trial or face a murder charge under any circumstances? The excecuted man being later proved innocent may well be a flaw of the death penalty, but wtf does that have to do with thinking the executioner should be charged with his murder?

You're either trying to equate the Metplod with the SS, or you're completely off your ****ing head.

[DJ]

Nope, you yourself said that the shooters would be unfairly jailed if it would come to that because they were ordered to kill the bloke.

I pointed out that 'just following orders guv' is no valid defense.

I bloody well expect the police to use necessary force. In this case an 'excuse me Sir, would you follow us please?' would have been about the maximum level of violence needed.

[Sir Bert Preast]

"Step this way sir" is the normal procedure. If it was to bundle the suspect and empty a pistol into his head you might have a point, but it isn't, is it? Is a policeman ordered to hit someone with a baton or tazer always guilty of ABH should it turn out to be the wrong man? Is it kidnapping every time they arrest someone innocent?

If anyone's at fault it's the commander who told them to do it. If these policemen were ordered to round up everybody in that block of flats and exterminate them then I'd be with you on their culpability. But they weren't. So they're nothing like the SS, and nothing ****ing to do with Nurnberg. See?

[Peacemaker7]

Whatever that other bloke says, the buck stops at the top, the met fecked up and 'Sir' Iain Blair should have the balls the carry the can. Bring back Sir John.