Talk:Shooting of Harry Stanley

Neutrality

This is obviously a very contentious issue and as a result people have taken sides as to what they think. I have edited comments which are very POV and obviously anti-police. I suggest a discussion of any edits before alteration. Please bear in mind there are at least two sides to every story, and I am trying to remain neutral. It is a fact in law that the officers will not face criminal charges or face disciplinary action after six years of court hearings and inquiries by agencies such as the CPS, IPCC and Sussex Police . People may have all sorts of reason for not liking this but these articles must try and remain neutral and evidenced. Dibble999 16:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

two sides you have only represented one. It is a fact that that they shot him, it is also a fact that they had no direct evidence that he was armed, but still shot him. That they in an empty street moved to a position were they were with in his supposed range before issuing the challenge, is also not disputed. They put themselves in danger they cannot be absolved of that. They cannot be absolved of personal responsibility and they cannot use the nurenburg defence.--RunningMan 16:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Runningman, I don't think I've only represented one. Please show where I have? I have reported what is official. Yes, it is a fact that they shot him. Who is disputing that? Not me nor the officers. Granted, they had no direct evidence that he was armed but the information they had suggested he was. Please realise that a lot of policing is not always straight forward, and its very easy in hindsight to say he wasn't armed. The officers were given a call where the information they received was that he was and, this is not often reported, the person who falsely called the police stated he threatened to kill a police officer. Right, then you appear to have some misconceptions about policing again. The officers issued an armed challenge, they think he is armed. Instead of doing what he is told, i.e. put the object down he in fact points it at the officers. They don't know whats in the wrapping and they have to decide straight away whether to hold fire and possibly get shot or take action. With respect, of course they put themsleves in danger, thats what police officers are paid to do. What are they supposed to do, hide. What happens if this man was armed and had gone on to shoot members of the public. You'd be the first to slate the police for inaction. I'm not sure what your on about with the 'Nuremburg' defence. Thats never been raised in this matter, no-one ordered the officers to fire so it is irrelevant and spurious. Can you not look at it from a different angle, CPS, IPCC and another force all reccommended no criminal charges or discipline...maybe because it was an honest and tragic mistake in a stressfull situation. I have not put all of the above in the aricle because, without the court report or all the evidence looked at by CPS/IPCC it would be POV. So the article represents what is official. That is all. It is not biaised unless you can show me where. Dibble999 17:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It is biased by omition. It omits a large number of facts, regarding the nature of the challenge, it was from behind, he was shot as he turned, how was he to know it was him that was being addressed. They put themselves at risk when there was no need to, they had no need to approach as close as they did, the challenege could have been issued from greater range lessening the danger and giving more time. Can you look at from the angle. The angle of what if the situation was the same, that the shooters were legally armed civilians and had same information. They would be at the very least on manslaughter charges. The only difference is the orders. The officers in London wanted to be excpt from prosecution when following orders sounds very much like Nuremberg to me. You also happily break the rules hear by removing the NPOV flag, what is your excuse for that?--RunningMan 18:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

RnningMan, first off my apologies for removing the NPOV flag. When I edited, it went, and I forgeot to replace it. I agree it should be there, hence our discussion. The problem is unless you are citing something from the court report or the evidence pack that went to the CPS/IPCC your 'facts' about what happended are not verifiable hence I have ommitted them. You have a version of events which I would dispute but, as I too don't have all the facts because I wasn't there at the time nor have the full court report etc I have put a bland comment like 'what actually happened after the challenge is a contentious issue which both sides dispute' or something like that. You do not know why they were so close, what happened i.e. did Mr Stanley swing around with a object in his hand with towards the officers etc etc. Your analogy re civilians is a bit off the wall, for all sorts of reasons (i.e. why would someone phone a civilian to report these circumstances and it is highly unlikely that civilians would be armed with handguns due to our laws etc etc) but even if we take your anology, you can't then say they would definately be on manslaughter charges, its hypothetical and very POV. With the utmost repect, orders have nothing to do with this situation. No officer can be ordered to shoot someone. Each armed officer must justify his decision to fire individually. For information these officers 'self authorised' which means they drew there weapons and ultimately fired with what they saw in front of them. In this country no officer can be ordered to fire, each constable is an individual servant of the crown so your Nuremburg thing is irrelevant. And, no, the officers in London did not want to be exempt, they wanted clarification of their position. You may not like this but it is a very difficult job with life and death decisions being made in a split second under situations where there own life might be a risk. Its not easy. If there was any chance of the CPS having a succesful prosecution or the IPCC having a realistic chance of taking action, believe me, they would have robustly followed through. There is no love lost between CPS & IPCC and police forces. But the bottom line, which I don't think your willing to accept is that both officers are not to face criminal or disciplinary charges because there is no evidence of either. It is a tragic mistake which with hindsight everyone would wish to avoid. I have just reported the facts that I can verify. I.e. the court results, the no criminal charges and so on. You appear to be adding uncitable POV. I don't wish to get into an argument and I am quite willing to go through the article point by point and try and get the best neutral piece that we can. Dibble999 18:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

"In interview, both officers maintained that Mr Stanley turned towards them"[1].

What do you see as the difference between the civilian and the police situation? In both situations the question is the reasonable use of force in this case it is being assumed that it is reasonable to automatically believe what you are told, if you are following a chain of command. The IPCC is farce anyone who has ever come into contact with it will tell you that, if it is a biased farce as well is dufficult to tell, but quoting it's uncontested reports as fact is incorrect. It is a mistake but who's has never been established and there has been no desire for on the part of the Police to look. The events demand a trial, it may be unfair on the grunts, but if meant the entire chain of cmmand in the dock I think it would be worth it. More so since recent events.--RunningMan 20:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to be honest with you, RunningMann, you seem to have something against the police, which is fine and your absolute right but it is a POV. I come from the other end of the spectrum, I'm in the job so perhaps I see it from a different angle and again my POV. But we must both try and be neutral. Thanks for the link, it actually backs ups what I'm trying to say, I've quoted it below:

"In interview, both officers maintained that Mr Stanley turned towards them, raising an object in his hands, which they believed was a sawn-off shotgun, until it pointed directly at them, This lead them to fear for Officer 2’s life. Both officers stated that they each fired a single shot because they considered that one of them faced an immediate threat to his life. There is, in the material before us, no substantial evidence upon which a jury could conclude that the officers’ beliefs were anything other than genuine. The only independent witness to view the entire scene supports the fact that Mr Stanley turned to face the police officers raising, as he did so, one of his arms in the direction of the police. She says that she saw the man raise one of his arms towards the officers in a deliberate and unhurried manner.

The scientific evidence does not undermine the account given by the officers regarding the events immediately before the shooting to the extent that The CPS considers that there is sufficient evidence of unlawfulness on their part. Although the account given by Officer 1 may superficially be inconsistent with the fact that Mr Stanley’s head was facing 120 degrees away from where he was standing, this does not exclude the possibility that the body and the right arm holding the carrier bag were nevertheless facing the officers, particularly if Mr Stanley was shot in the hand first, causing an unpredictable head movement. Similarly, although the fact that there was no injury to Mr Stanley’s body indicates that he was not holding the bag out directly in front of him, this does not necessarily mean that he was not holding the bag with both hands in the general direction of the police officers."

Regards your point civilian versus police. Fundamentally there is no difference between police use of force and civilian. Police and civilians can rely on common law & Criminal Law Act 1977, but police officers also have a section in PACE which authorises force in certain circumstances. Again, what would have happened, is that the armed officers would have had radio message saying something along the lines of man believed to have shotgun heading on such and such street etc. The officers would have been dispatched but no senior officer can order anyone to shoot. Its down to the individual officer who pulls the trigger. In law, whether your civilian or police you have to look at what the person believed at the time. You seem to be suggesting that the two officers should not have automatically believed what they had been told. Thats great in hindsight but you can't expect the officers to take chances. Every day officers have to cope with volatile and unknown situations with little or no information which may or may not be correct. In this case as far as they were aware at the time, they thought Mr Stanley had a sawn off and when challenged he pointed it at them. Yes, it was a mistake which was tragic and shouldn't have happened but it was not criminal and was not a breach of discipline. My feeling is, the person who made that stupid phone call should have been traced and prosecuted. No hoax call no incident.

Regards the IPCC, in some ways, I agree they are a farce, (this again is my POV but for reasons different to you) but as it stands they are the authority which investigates police mis-conduct and cock ups so its right to quote them. Especially as it is a fact that there decision means that the officers will not face disciplinary sanctions. You may not like it, but its a fact.

Your sentence doesn't make sense regarding the mistake and the police having a look. You may not know but when someone is killed by police, its not the police that investigate but the IPCC.

I'm sorry but the events do not justify a trial. The CPS have decided that. All criminal cases are prosecuted by the CPS not the police. The police arrest the offenders, question and gather the evidence which is then passed to the CPS who then make the decision as to whether to charge and what charge should be laid, if any. The CPS must decide if a case has a realistic prospect of conviction before laying charges. Your link spells out that in this case there was no realistic prospect of conviction. If they had charged the officers as you seem to demand it would have been thrown out of court straight off the bat by any judge because there is no evidence to support a criminal charge.

You obviously have very strong views on this issue but we need to try and stay away from POV and feelings. Oh, and I don't think you should try and draw parrallels between this case and the tube shooting. Two different situations. If you think we should alter the article to be as balanced as we can please make suggestions and I'll be happy to discuss. Dibble999 23:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

"You seem to be suggesting that the two officers should not have automatically believed what they had been told." You now using the nurenberg defence.

"In interview, both officers maintained that Mr Stanley turned towards them" in other words Mr Stanley was not facing them when challenged and had no way of knowing he was the one being addressed.

I'm afraid you PR hacking for the police is over. You do not want to address any of the issues. Simply put PR in the way.--RunningMan 11:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

RunningMan, you are simply ignoring what I am saying and placing your POV on the article. I suggested we discuss alterations here before making ammendments, but I see you have again altered the article and placed highly POV and emotive paragraphs on the article such as:

"The IPCC investifative staff is composed largely of ex police officers. It's officers have in the past colluded with police forces by making false complaint. allwong forces to intimdate complaints. The majority of complaints received by the IPCC are rejected."

This is completely subjective and your POV. How can you possibly allege collusion without any sort of evidence to cite. You obviously don't like the result of the inquiries and court cases so you now suggest that the IPCC are corrupt. Thats ok if you have evidence but you don't. No doubt you think the CPS is bent also and the other force that investigated. My point with this Nuremburg thing you keep raising is that, in law you need to prove the 'mens rea' (or whats in the mind of the defendant) at the time. These officers thought they were facing a man with a shot gun and fired in self defence. This applies to everyone not just officers. You are trying to re-run a decision made by the CPS which had far more evidence in front of it then you did. And, I would suggest, they are probably far more objective than you. I have removed the highly subjective and POV paragraph you have added. I have also reinstated the line about the contentious issue of the actual shooting. And lastly, I am not PR hacking for the police, I am trying to bring balance to this (notice I added Mrs Stanleys comments and objections). I have placed on record what has officially been found. You keep adding subjective and questionable allegations of corruption. Instead of allegeing I am PR for the police, please can we discuss any changes here before alterations are made. Thanks. Dibble999 17:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The officer put themselves in the position, a position which would inevitably led to a shooting, it was impossible for Mr Stanley to know who was being challenged. No event, like this, can be understood from the final frame. The police created the situation around Mr Stanley. The way the did it made the outcome inevitable.The officers were ordered into that position, an act of reckless endangerment at the very least.

Your happy to defend these two. If you were investigating could you give an unbiased opinion? The CPS relies on information provided and that provided by other forces.

The CPS's report is not a finding of innocence. The IPCC report unless tested by an open court is worthless. Until it is test all points of view are valid, you can quote the guardian[2].--RunningMan 18:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Right...before this gets too heated, let's remember we are writing an encyclopedia entry, not discussing the contentious issue of who was right/wrong and what exactly happened that day. Please take the time, if you haven't, to read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. A good way to go forward is to attribute and reference statements. That Harry Stanley was shot is not controversial. That he was shot in the head and hand is not controversial. That the officers had not positioned themselves in the best tactical position before issuing the challenge is. Who is claiming this. Source? That one inquest found the killing unlawful is not controversial in that everyone accepts it happened, but is controversial in that it was later overturned. Tricky eh? Lets just state the facts (Did I mention this was an encyclopedia?) The facts do include people's opinions, but in a factual way and only when held by the majority or a significant minority, e.g Some groups have stated that the officers placed themselves in the wrong position before challenging Mr. Stanley (SOURCE) but the police have maintained that they were following correct procedures (SOURCE). Let's not let this turn into an edit war that achieves little. Let's ensure this article stays balanced. Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and assume good faith. If I get a mo I'll try and start referencing things to help the process along.

P.S. RunningMan, yes, there are differing opinions about the IPCC, but they mainly belong in the IPCC article, I would suggest. Sapient 08:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

"In interview, both officers maintained that Mr Stanley turned towards them"[1]. In other words he was not facing them when challenged. Who could he have know the challenge was addressed to him. They admit not knowing his name. What more would you like for them being in the wrong position.

What we see her is dibble bias and it is extreme. Organisations like the IPCC who are composed of cops and are therefore potentially biased. Dibble only want things quoted that he agrees with. He is acting in a particlulary copper like way. Refusing to address the points. He even tryies to ignore one raised, like the shot while turning point. He doesn;t have the gout to put his own name up. The IPCC has an extremely corrupt office in Manchester. In the interests of NPOV he shouldn't edit this article at all. I will restor it back to pr his hack. Which he did not discuss.--RunningMan 11:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I think reverting back to the 'original' version is a good place to start from to improve the article. I can see from your comments above that you are very critical of the IPCC. This is a valid point of view, indeed the book 'The Untouchables', while mainly about the Met Police complaints dept, also severely critisises the set-up of the IPCC. Nevertheless, this is an encyclopedia, and I'm sure there are newsgroups/websites where you can share & explore these views. I would say, here is not the place. The IPCC article isn't either, though it would be appropriate for this point of view and the other point of view to be placed. But I digress... how about further changes try to make the article neutral and more comprehensive, whilst, wherever possible, citing references. If you haven't read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view do, and remember to assume good faith on other edits. Sorry RunningMan if it seems I'm having a go at you here, I'm not - we need all significant points of view represented - and I'm trying to address anyone who wants to edit the article so that we don't get into a revert war! I think it's obvious that the POV of the article is disputed, so I'm putting the POV tag back on it. I'm also going to try and reference a few bits of it. Sapient 20:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Right, there has been no activity on this page for a month since I went through the article and tried to NPOV it. I'm going to remove the tag... Sapient 13:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

LETS FACE IT. THIS GUY HAD A CRIMINAL RECORD OF ARMED ROBBERY. HE WAS CARRYING THE BAG IN A WAY THAT HE LOOKED LIKE HE WAS SECURING A FIREARM, WHY WAS HE CARRYING A TABLE/CHAIR LEG. HE TURNED AND THREATENED THE POLICE WITH IT. ITS PATHETIC - THE COUNTRY IS BETTER OFF WITHOUT HIM.

Firstly, Stanley did not have any such criminal record. Secondly, neither he nor anyone else needs to justify carrying a table leg to anyone, let alone the police. Thirdly, if you bothered to read the article you'd see that the reason why he was carrying it was already been mentioned. Fourthly, there is no evidence that he was carrying it "in a way that looked like he was securing a firearm". Fifthly, there is no evidence that he threatened anyone with the table leg. Sixthly, your apparent belief that it is not only okay, but a good thing for an innocent person to be killed by the police for something as innocuous as this is truly sickening. Seventhly, TYPING LIKE THIS is unnecessary, annoying and doesn't make your argument any more persuasive; not using all-caps is Internet 101 - please learn it. Finally, if you're going to post on Wikipedia discussion pages please learn how to add your name/timestamp. It's very easy: just type four of these at the end of your post: ~. Thank you. -- Hux 09:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: "WHY WAS HE CARRYING A TABLE/CHAIR LEG": To shoot someone with, obviously. Jeez! I've just read through the above discussion, and, far be it from me to agree with the police as a rule ;-), I must congratulate Dibble999 on his patience and diligence, not rising to the bait, and arguing constructively and fairly. Runningman, your automatic gainsaying of each point made is a poor argumental tactic, and gives us liberals and dissenters a bad name. Please try and see the man's point, it's an encyclopedia entry, and facts should be represented, there is no place for opinion, except where cited and reported in a balanced way. Pollythewasp (talk) 11:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You obviously have something against Runingman. Please try to maintain a neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.215.34 (talk) 10:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Appeal

Did his family attempt to appeal the High Court decision in the Supreme Court? Nil Einne 12:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC) The Supreme Court did not exist then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.237.213.203 (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Death of Harry Stanley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041031044540/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk:80/news/articles/14372830 to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/14372830
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.metfed.org.uk/current_affairs.html#ca03

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Death of James Ashley which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)