Dying on the BBC is not for public viewing 

Leaked  TRUTH HOW Jean Charles De Menezes WAS SHOT AND KILLED

Her crime was  --- telling the truth --- that the police were lying 

• Lana Vandenbergh could not stand by any more and told the truth and she was arrested for telling the truth
• she was threatened by the police with prosecution and jail. 
•  
• Police lied about the details of the shooting and the truth was kept hidden for weeks
  

A Police officers 'LAME EXCUSE' when they kill an 'Innocent Unarmed person'

My Life was in danger

Just saying My LIFE WAS IN DANGER IS NOT EVIDENCE -- But they don't have to prove it

This is the LAW OF ENGLAND That so many men women and children have died for in 2 world wars

Harry Stanley - 22 Sept 1999 - Father of 3 children  Father of 3 children  Shot by London CO19 police  - Killed instantly 22 Oct 1999 Murdered by English police just walking home The definition of murder: [Murder must be intentional and pre-meditated. Kill intentionally and with premeditation] A man from a pub phones the police an says a man has a sawn-off shotgun.  The police who don't know anything about the man who made the call.  If he is drunk or not  .... or if what he said is reliable.  Police still go and shoot Harry Stanley on the flimsiest of evidence.  Some reports say the call was for a joke. This is seen by the police to justify them shooting and killing an innocent man. This casts serious doubts on the police intelligence May 12, 2005 Police inspector Neil Sharman, was promoted to chief inspector which shows the confidence the police have that NO POLICE OFFICER WILL EVER BE CHARGED WITH MURDER Both officers said  Mr Stanley had turned round to face them, assuming a “classic firing position"  ('LIES') Medical evidence PROVES THE POLICE LIED. When you prove this beyond doubt. All their other evidence cannot be believed Mr H Stanley could only walk painfully after an operation for colon cancer. He also had difficulty 'Walking, Bending and Raising his arms.' When the police 'Fairy tale' is proved to be a lie by pathologist and ballistics experts  both the officer are not charged with murder or dismissed.  Which shows the type of officer the police want to employ Inspector Neil Sharman also said he aimed at body ... but by accident he shot Mr Stanley in the head. I wonder how long police can go on spreading the distortions and misrepresentations of facts  Police can perjure themselves without penalty   It was a criminal act followed by an ill-conceived cover-up. criminal act followed by an ill-conceived cover-up.  How many times do we have to prove a police officer lies and their attempt to obstruct justice, in order to get the police and the CPS to charge them. Inspector Sharman from only 15 feet away shot Mr Harry Stanley in the side of the head as he was turning around. The fatal entry wound was at the back left side of his head and not the front right of his skull, as would be expected if the officers story were true. (So the police LIED) 20th October 2005 The IPCC also said the accounts of the two officers "lacked credibility". Harry Stanley was shot in the side of the head only a few yards from his house by Inspector Neil Sharman and in the hand by Pc Kevin Fagan  (Showing both officers had lied they had said  Mr Stanley had turned round to face them, assuming a “classic firing position")     A Home Office pathologist Who examined Harry’s bullet wounds also said the position of entry and exit holes to his head indicated he was “slightly facing away”. This is one more of the worst cases of the law protecting police officers that murder an innocent man just walking home and what the law can do to stop the police from being convicted. June 2002 Coroner Dr Stephen Chan told an inquest jury 'NOT' to consider a verdict of 'Unlawful killed"  Ignoring all the evidence from Dr David Rouse Home Office pathologist and Peter Brooks, a ballistics expert'   Dr Stephen Chan did not allow the crucial ballistics evidence to be heard, The Coroner Dr Stephen Chan told the inquest jury 'NOT' to consider a verdict of unlawful killing  The Inquest jury were forced to give an 'Open verdict'. This deliberate biased interference with the jury was overturned.  When he ignored the  'Scientific Forensic' evidence.   Oct 2004 At the second Inquest the Jury gave an 'Unlawfully Killed' verdict.  At that hearing, Dr Andrew Reid, the St Pancras coroner Gave the jury the option to consider an unlawful killing verdict    Expert reports show Mr Stanley couldn't  have been facing the police as Inspector Neil Sharman and PC Kevin Fagan had claimed. Dr David Rouse Home Office pathologist told St Pancras Coroner's Court in London that a bullet entered the head from the rear above Mr Stanley's left ear and exited slightly higher on the other side. Not from the front The position of entry and exit holes to his head indicated he was “slightly facing away”. Peter Brooks, a ballistics expert with the National Forensic Science Service, told the inquest that Mr Stanley's head was "rotated 110 degrees to his right ..... AWAY ..... from the direction in which the shots were fired". The Jury gave an 'Unlawfully Killed' verdict. Unlawfully killed verdict of an 'Inquest jury' - OVERTURNED This shows the police can then find a High court judge' sitting alone behind closed doors who will overturn an 'Unlawfully killed' verdict of the Inquest jury. 12 May 2005 Mr Justice Leveson sitting alone in the 'High court' quashed the Inquest jury verdict of  'Unlawfully killed'. The family was refused permission to appeal. Mr Justice Leveson sitting alone in the High court gives a verdict the  police want ...... with no fresh evidence to do so Ignoring all the evidence from the 2nd 'Inquest' and ignoring the evidence from Dr David Rouse Home Office pathologist and  Peter Brooks, a ballistics expert' The evidence Mr Justice Leveson ignored. Ignoring all evidence from Dr David Rouse Home Office pathologist and Peter Brooks, a ballistics expert'  Expert reports show Mr Stanley couldn't  have been facing the police as Inspector Neil Sharman and PC Kevin Fagan had claimed.   A man from a 'PUB' phones the police The police 'DO NOT' know if he is reliable or if he is a known practical joker Police still go and shoot Mr Harry Stanley on the flimsiest of evidence.  It was reported the call was for a joke.   This is seen by the police to justify them shooting and killing an innocent man. This casts serious doubts on the intelligence of the police. Police can shoot an innocent man on the flimsiest of evidence who is no threat to the police in any way. This cast serious doubts on the intelligence of the judge who  Overturned the 2nd 'Inquest jury verdict of Unlawfully killed.  Police not in any danger Mr Harry Stanley didn't creep up behind the police. They creep up behind him When Mr Harry Stanley was shot and killed just walking home   There is "NO EVIDENCE' to suggest Inspector Sharman and Pc Kevin Fagan Were in any danger of being shot other than them saying so.   But they would obviously say anything to justify shooting an unarmed man. Any danger the police wrongly thought they were in, was because they put themselves in that position. Hide behind the car you just got out of. Kids playing cowboys and Indians know that POLICE MURDER INNOCENT PEOPLE  Edmund Lawson QC has confirmed what so many families have known for years that police murder innocent people. Edmund Lawson QC, representing Ch Insp Sharman, had asked the High Court to rule the second inquest "defective" and the verdict to be quashed.  He said: 'Unlawful killed' verdict amounted to "murder by the police" Scientific Forensic evidence  Inspector Sharman Is asking intelligent people to believe he must be the worst police marksman in the world. From only 15 feet away the inspector said .... he aimed at Mr H Stanley's BODY  But his aim was so bad he shot Mr Stanley in the head????   The other officer Pc Kevin Fagan must also be blind.  He told the jury he was convinced he was "looking down the barrel of a shotgun.  The only person looking at a gun was Mr H Stanley - just before you both shot and killed him Remembering  THEY BOTH LIED ABOUT  Mr Stanley turned in a “smooth fluid motion”, pointing the table leg at them. THIS IS ANOTHER FAIRY TALE This cast serious doubts on the intelligence of the judge who  Overturned the 2nd 'Inquest jury verdict of Unlawfully killed.  A Judge in a very high profile English case said, "If you prove the defendant has lied .... what are you left with."  Then the defendant was found guilty. (This rule of law obviously doesn't apply if your a policeman) Surrey Police Investigation  June 2005 An investigation by Surrey police showed that there were questions raised by the story of the two police officers and they were arrested on suspicion of murder, gross negligence, manslaughter and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)  In Oct 2005 The CPS announced they would not be bringing murder charges against the officers. They said there was insufficient evidence to charge any police officer for gross negligence, manslaughter and misconduct in a public office. (They always say that by ignoring any evidence this time from the  ,,,, 'Surrey police force' investigation authority) After the CPS themselves said: CPS judged that the scientific and expert evidence contradicted the account given by the two officers.  The officers' accounts of the position of his head and the bag were wrong, a CPS official confirmed.   The CPS admitted that the evidence appeared to indicate that Mr. Stanley may have been shot as he began to turn towards the officers, which contradicted the statements provided by them The CPS also concluded that there was sufficient evidence to show the officers haste and lack of planning led them to breach their duty of care to Stanley and cause his death   But the CPS still refuse to charge the police officers The fatal entry wound was at the back left side of his head and not the front right of his skull, as would be expected if the officers story were true. [So the police lied]   Then the CPS ignore all the evidence against the police and don't charge them.    The CPS should be charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Her Majesty's Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI) reports to the Attorney General. These inspectors examine the way in which the CPS relates to the public, through its dealings with victims and witnesses, its external communication and liaison, its handling of complaints and its applications of the public interest test contained in the Code for Crown Prosecutors. BUT NO ONE EVER HEARS THEM DO ANYTHING WHEN THE CPS IGNORE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE POLICE AND REFUSES TO CHARGE THE POLICE OFFICERS Deborah Coles, coordinator of pressure group Inquest, said:  "This decision (not to charge police officers) follows a pattern of cases where police officers whose conduct has led to death.   "It shows that  the rule of law does 'Not' apply to police officers."    "How can we accept that the shooting dead of an unarmed man does not result in a trial where .... 'a jury' .... decides whether the actions were unlawful?" Friday November 5, 2004 The rule of law does not apply equally to those in police uniform. Daniel Machover Hickman and Rose solicitors Deborah Coles Inquest Slanderous attack on the character of Mr H Stanley (the victim)  Deborah Glass from the PCA to the IPCC different name but the same person who protects the police and 'BLACKEN's the victims character In the City of London, Hertfordshire, Thames Valley, Surrey and the Metropolitan (North East) police forces, as well as London Borough Parks police in North East London.   Deborah Glass IPCC Independent Police Complaints Commission   Defended 'NOT' taking disciplinary action against the police officers who shot and killed Harry Stanley as he was just walking home.  Have you investigated the officers character in the same way. They are the assailants not Mr Stanley he was the victim SEE THE PREVIOUS PAGE for the report - Click here

Murdered by English police Sept 1999: Mr Stanley shot dead 4 December, 2000 The CPS said the two officers would not face criminal charges. June 2002: Inquest jury returns 'Open verdict'  because Coroner refused the jury to consider an 'Unlawfully killed' verdict. This biased ruling was overturned. April 2003: High Court orders new inquest Oct 2004: Inquest returns 'Unlawful killing verdict' May 2005: High Court judge (Sitting alone behind closed doors) quashes second inquest verdict of Unlawfully killed June 2005: Two officers arrested An investigation by Surrey police showed that there were questions raised by their story and the officers were arrested on suspicion of murder, gross negligence, manslaughter and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. 20th October 2005 The Crown Prosecution Service again said today there was "insufficient evidence" to charge the pair. (The CPS never charge police officer for any death no matter how it happens. Unless a High Court judge forces them to) ********************** This shows how the police try to stop the police from being investigated correctly and charged. The family lawyer for the Stanley family found out that: The Surrey PCA investigation was being advised by the firearms inspector responsible for the two officers who shot and killed Harry Stanley As a result, that adviser was replaced.  Secret Police Report By Surrey Constabulary, (the police force that killed Mr H Stanley) which was completed in April 2000, was covered by a 'PUBLIC INTEREST IMMUNITY CERTIFICATE  meaning the meaning it will remain secret. ********************** Police WITHHOLD EVIDENCE FOR 6 years   4 bullets fired NOT 2  In January 2005, as part of the CPS review following the unlawful killing verdict, investigators were reported to have discovered significant new forensic evidence two bullet holes to the top left shoulder of the jacket that Harry Stanley was wearing when he was shot.  ************** This is the unconvincing 'Quote' every officer gives Read from the police manual  A judge will except this because this is the 'Loop Hole' the law has so police cannot be found guilty of shooting .... or in any way .... killing innocent people No police officer has ever been -- killed or injured -- wearing a bullet proof jacket and helmet ************************************** Killed instantly  Three 'Unlawfully killed' verdicts against the police are quashed. The police can always find a judge to agree with the verdict they want Leon Patterson  Unlawfully Killed changed to Misadventure to which neglect contributed. Harry Stanley A High Court judge quashed an inquest verdict of unlawfully killed by the police.  Roger Sylvester A High Court judge quashed an inquest verdict of unlawfully killed by the police. ************************************** High Court judge Mr Justice Leveson  The High court Judge quashed an Unlawfully Killed verdict against the police officers. Ignoring evidence from Scientific Forensic evidence that the police lied. His ruling is also against the rights of the Magna Carta of 1215 Since the Magna Carta (negotiated between King John's government and his subjects in 1215AD) We have had a jury system in England which states 'lawful judgment of his peers' (the peers are the jury).  THIS DOES NOT MEAN ONE JUDGE ACTING ALONE Trial by jury was first enshrined in English law in what has been seen as the world's first proclamation of human rights - the Magna Carta. But now Edmund Lawson QC doesn't agree with the Magna Carta of 1215 and he finds a judge that agrees with him that a jury shouldn't give a verdict on the evidence.    When ordinary people appeal   An appeal against a verdict will not be given just because you  don't like the verdict.   Editor Notes Assault charges The families have a right to know, For all deaths in custody Have any of the police officers been accused of violence or assault or causing a death before or has their character been questioned. If so how many times, whether substantiated or not. Because we know how the PCA cover up violence from the police in the past. Has he any problems at home or work. Does he have any extremist or moderate views. How many times has he been on a fire arms alert engagement 13 October 2006 Report from Dr Lewinski, professor of sociology at Minnesota State University. USA Police are now really desperate to justify killing Mr Stanley The CPS and police have to go to the USA and see Dr Lewinski to try to justify how Mr Stanley was shot.  It shows how desperate the police are not to charge the police officers for killing Mr Harry Stanley. Dr Lewinski in the USA said that in the two seconds it takes an officer to draw and pull the trigger, a suspect can fire nine rounds. A person can turn and move as much as 13ft (4m) in one second. NOT WHEN THE POLICE ALREADY HAVE GUNS IN THEIR HANDS Inspector Sharman and PC Kevin Fagan where aiming their guns as Mr H Stanley was turning around and he could only walk painfully after an operation for colon cancer. The two officers that shot Mr Harry Stanley had the guns in their hands and already aiming their guns so Dr Lewinski theory in this case is CRAP. A Home Office pathologist who examined Harry’s bullet wounds said the position of entry and exit holes to his head indicated he was “slightly facing away”. This proves Mr H Stanley was hit in the side of the head. IT DOES NOT PROVE HE WAS TURNING AWAY. 'It Proves' Mr Stanley had not completed turning around to face the police when he was shot. Let police kill with no prosecutions  John Mackenzie the lawyer who represented two policemen who shot and killed Mr Stanley on a London street has called for police to be granted immunity if they kill while on duty. John Mackenzie said an Indemnity Act would protect officers from criminal and civil prosecution in the event of a death. Terry Stewart secretary of the Justice for Harry Stanley Campaign, said: “There has never been a conviction of an officer for shooting an unarmed member of the public, so calling for immunity is nonsense. There is no need for 'Immunity Act' because they’ve already got it. ********************* LIES FROM  Deborah Glass IPCC Independent Police Complaints Commission 29 October 2004 On the IPCC web site report Deborah Glass, IPCC Commissioner said: “There is a need for further research into whether there are more effective methods for firearms officers in dealing with vulnerable people,  such as those impaired by alcohol, as Mr Stanley was. (implying Mr H Stanley had been drinking alcohol   Deborah Glass IPCC Your statement is shown to be a lie by the following report 2 years earlier from a 'Court of law' where the FACTS HAVE TO BE TRUTHFUL Tuesday, 29th April 2002 King's College London, Royal Courts of Justice. THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF STANLEY v HER MAJESTY'S CORONER FOR INNER NORTH LONDON Before MR JUSTICE SILBER: Clearly states   Introduction 1. On 22nd September 1999 Mr Henry Stanley was shot by Inspector Sharman and Police Constable Fagan ("the officers"), who were then serving as firearms police officers of the Metropolitan Police Firearms Unit SO19.  Mr Stanley, who had been returning from his brother's home carrying a coffee table leg which had been repaired by his brother. On his way home he decided to stop at the Alexandra Public House to buy some lemonade.   Other reports say the same thing Mr H Stanley was drinking lemonade Deborah Glass from the PCA to the IPCC different name but the same people protect the police and 'BLACKEN' the victims character. No one should believe anything you ever say again.

This is English LAW - When the police kill innocent men, women and children. THE LAW IS THERE TO PROTECT THE POLICE NOT TO SEE JUSTICE FOR THE VICTIM OR THEIR FAMILY Who represents the family in an English court when an innocent man or women is killed by the police NOT THE POLICE and the CPS - they have always refused to charge the officer/s

Sarah Thomas 35yo - 6th Aug 1999 

Died in very suspicious circumstances. Was she alone and attacked in a cell?

Sarah died after being in a two-day coma following her arrest, in front of her house in Finsbury Park, London, in the early hours of Wednesday 4 August 1999.

Over £1 million has been paid  by the Metropolitan Police, out of public funds, to people taking successful action against officers at Stoke Newington Police Station for wrongful arrest, unlawful violence etc.

14 June 2000 - UK Director of Amnesty International, Kate Allen - report
The report underlined three deaths in police custody in the UK - Roger Sylvester in January, Sarah Thomas in August and Barry Stanley in November - as having "disputed circumstances".

• The PCA police 'Unsupervised' investigation  was carried out by the Metropolitan Police's Complaints Investigation Bureau. 
• Police from the same police area that is responsible for the death of Sarah Thomas

A FIT HEALTHY young woman HAS A FIT? - So the police say - No medical evidence to prove this

A Chinese woman architectural design student at North London University Sarah was a healthy 35 year old with no police record and no record of fits.

The police said she was arrested using restraint in North London 

• for what the police described as acting suspicious outside her own flat. 
• THE ONLY THING THAT IS SUSPICIOUS IS THE POLICE MOTIVE FOR THE ARREST by the two plain clothes police officers
• She was locked out and was JUST waiting for her boyfriend Paul Doyle outside their flat in Finnsbury Park in North London. 

Then at the police station the police said  ....  'she suffered a fit' .... ( A fit healthy women has a fit? ) 

1. Why would a healthy girl have a fit. No medical evidence to prove this. Just police issuing false information again.
2. So it seems Sarah Thomas was not ... ' Restrained' ... while being arrested ...  
3. but excessively restrained at the police station. .... Why and for what reason? 
4. 90% of Chinese woman are just over 5ft tall very slim build ... which beggars the question why was Police Restraint of any type necessary?
5. Reports say by the time she reached Homerton Hospital she was in a coma.  
6. Where she died 2 days later
7. (It seems more likely Sarah Thomas was in a coma at the police station before being taken to hospital.)
8. There is NO medical evidence that Sarah had a fit 


9. The police are withholding all information as to how Sarah Thomas died 
10. Which shows the police have something to hide

Rodger Sylvester another 'Coma' victim
It's more likely Sarah Thomas went into a coma at the police station because of excessive 'Restraint' like Roger Sylvester who was also critically ill in a coma before he died in Jan 1999 only 7 months earlier

Unanswered questions:

1. At the police station was Sarah Thomas charged and put in a cell alone? 
   
   
2. There is NO medical evidence to say Sarah Thomas had a fit' 
   This is just the police cover up statement.' 
3. Why would a healthy women have a .... 'Fit' ...  in a cell ?
   
4. Was Sarah Thomas at any time alone in cell, if so for how long?
5. If Sarah was in a cell alone was it sealed as a crime scene to see if Sarah was attacked in the cell?
   
6. Was a 'Post Mortem' carried out?
   No report has said one was carried out.
   One should be carried out for a death in custody in these circumstances

It has to be remembered that many police officers have been convicted of attacking vulnerable women in the police station cells.  At least 33 police officer convicted of 'Rape, sexual or indecent assault, on teenage girls and boys. PC Paul Miller found guilty of sexually assaulting  a 17yo Chinese school girl  jailed for five years after dragging her off the street into bushes. Sarah's arrest is seen by many as a 'Death in suspicious circumstances' without a full 'Public Inquiry' Now we have the IPCC we may get a truthful conclusion to what really happened to Sarah Thomas

Deborah Coles, co-director of Inquest, a campaign and advice group for people who have died in police custody, said 

1. She was "disturbed and angered" by Ms Thomas's death. 
2. "There has been an air of secrecy and confusion about her death.
3. We can have no confidence in the PCA inquiry which relies on the police investigating other police," she said.

Sarah Thomas, a young, gifted, Chinese woman who was studying Architecture at Middlesex University, was arrested, according to the police, for "acting suspiciously", but collapsed and stopped breathing in Stoke Newington Police Station on 4th August 1999.
She was taken to hospital but never recovered consciousness and was pronounced dead on 6th August 1999.

Sarah's death was yet another death in suspicious circumstances involving the police at Stoke Newington Police Station which has one of the highest rates of death in custody, unlawful arrest and violence against those arrested, especially involving black and ethnic minority people.

Over £1 million has been paid by the Metropolitan Police, out of public funds, to people taking successful action against officers at
Stoke Newington Police Station for wrongful arrest, unlawful violence etc.

 The two ..... 'Plain clothes' ..... police officers involved in Sarah's arrest were not even been suspended from their duties. 

Paul Doyle, Sarah's partner, believes that a Police investigation will not provide him with the truth about what happened to Sarah. In countless cases, justice had been denied to the relatives of the dead because successive governments have refused to establish independent investigations in to deaths in police custody.

Jo Dobry, from the PCA, said:  "This will be a very comprehensive investigation, including what happened prior to her arrest carried out. The result will be passed to the Coroner for the public inquest."  Which in 'Real life' means the PCA will do anything to stop police officers being charged 1999 to 2007 No information of an ... 'Inquest' ... being carried out ... or any information of a 'Comprehensive police investigation No medical information or evidence to prove Sarah Thomas had a fit

• Stoke Newington Police Station.
• Has one of the highest rates of death in custody, unlawful arrest and violence against those arrested

There has been many more deaths in custody at Stoke Newington Police Station

Editor Notes Not one police officer charged with causing the death of any of these people Therefore the police are saying all these people would have died anyway on that day at that time even if the police had not arrested them.

NOT ONE OFFICER CHARGED WITH ANY DEATH 

1. 2002 Mr Kwame Wiredu he was left laying on the police station floor for over half an hour. He was complaining of severe pains and was visibly distressed. He subsequently died. like Mr C Alder left on the police station floor to die. 
2. 1999 6th Aug - Sarah Thomas  Just waiting outside her flat for her boyfriend. Died in suspicious circumstances after being taken from the police station in a coma.
3. 1999 22nd Sept - Harry Stanley  Just walking home shot by SO19 police.
   It was the 11th death in five years involving the police in the Hackney and Stoke Newington area.
4. 1994 Trevor Monerville suffered temporary paralysis and brain damage after being arrested by Stoke Newington Police
5. 1994 Mr Lapite 34yo died  in Stoke Newington police station in December 1994 Inquest verdict unlawfully killed.
   He was found to have up to 45 injuries and died from asphyxiation after being held in a neck-hold. 
   All he was doing was crossing the road for a take-away
6. 1987 Tunay Hassin died in the station. 
7. 1983 Colin Roach died in the station. 
8. 1978 Michael Ferraria died in the station. 
9. 1971 Aseta Sims died in the station.
10. Vandana Patel
11. 1987 Tunay Hassin died in the station. 
12. 1983 Colin Roach died in the station. 
13. 1978 Michael Ferraria died in the station. 
14. 1971 Aseta Sims died in the station.
15. Vandana Patel was stabbed to death INSIDE the station. (No information as to how he was stabbed)

1994 PC Paul Evans from Stoke Newington, East London, was convicted of one charge of assault and one of affray but cleared of more serious charges. PC Evans, 10 years a police officer, will lose his job and his police pension. 

A Police officers 'LAME EXCUSE' when they kill an 'Innocent Unarmed person'

'My Life was in danger'

Just saying My LIFE WAS IN DANGER IS NOT EVIDENCE -- But they don't have to prove it

This is the LAW OF ENGLAND That so many men women and children have died for in 2 world wars

If your a policeman you can shoot anyone and say your life was in danger 

Even when it's a 5yo boy --- hiding under a bed because police storm into your house screaming and shouting and your scared as hell

The five-year-old boy was shot in the chest and was instantly killed  in a police raid on his home in Birmingham

The 'Unwritten English law' - No police officer must ever be charged and found guilty of deliberating shooting and killing an innocent person or child
PC Brian Chester stood trial for manslaughter and was 'FOUND NOT GUILTY'

An innocent child .... NO THREAT TO THE POLICE in any way is shot and killed

Now we know what we have always believed

• The police shoot first 
  
• WITH NO WARNING
  
• Then THE LAW WILL PROTECT THEM FROM BEING CONVICTED 
• for killing men, women and children.

Even when your a 5yo boy hiding under the bed because the police are shouting and screaming as they raid the house and the little lad was scared as hell.

• Then a policeman sees you under the bed and shoots you.
• PC Brian Chester, stood trial for manslaughter and was 'FOUND NOT GUILTY
• Assistant Chief Constable of West Midlands, Paul Leopold said "Other officers had been in the room before this officer and they had no idea anybody was in there.
• 
  So it is obvious the 5yo was under the bed

1985: 5yo boy killed in police raid 

The five-year-old boy 5yo boy John who was the eldest of 3 brothers was shot and killed in a police raid on his fathers home in Birmingham.

5yo John Shorthouse was killed after armed officers stormed into his home looking for his father, also named John.

The boy was shot in the chest as the police officer searched under his bed.

He was carried to a police car and pronounced dead at the hospital

PC Brian Chester is a 36-year old constable with 16-years service in the West Midlands force.

In 1986 the officer who shot 5yo John Shorthouse, PC Brian Chester, stood trial for manslaughter but was acquitted

Mistaken identity and shot - more and more innocent people shot and killed by the police.

14 Jan 1983: Stephen Waldorf shot and seriously wounded 

Shooting of film editor Stephen Waldorf in Kensington, west London.

Mr Stephen Waldorf was shot five times but survived after police mistakenly thought he was a dangerous escaped prisoner called David Martin.

Two police officers were eventually acquitted of attempted murder in connection with the Waldorf case.

Police say lessons were learnt and the ACPO guidelines were drawn up in an attempt to prevent a repetition.

 

Paul Boateng

April 13, 1999 Home Office minister Paul Boateng

Mr Peach, a schoolteacher, died from a blow to the head. Eleven witnesses claimed to have seen members of the Metropolitan Police Special Patrol Group (SPG) hitting Mr Peach in a side-street at the height of the violence. No officers were charged with the alleged attack.

Paul Boateng from the Home Office said what could be gained out of the "tragedy" of Mr Peach's death. "Lessons have been learned from the circumstances of his death

What the police have learnt is .... NO police officer will ever be charged and convicted for killing innocent men and women and children

Don't the public and families of innocent people killed get fed up of the 'Infamous phrase' LESSON WILL BE LEARNT'.

2 more Mistaken identity men shot and both killed AGAIN - Is the 3rd 20th or 50th or more times police shoot innocent men

Police infamous quote - LESSON WILL BE LEARNT'.   

• It didn't stop Harry Stanley 22 Sept 1999 and

• Charles de Menezes 22 July 2005 both shot and killed after being mistaken for terrorists.

• The police had over 15 years to get it right. 

• Most police are incompetent but it sounds good to say 'Lesson will be learnt.'

• Shoot the muggers
• Shoot the burglars
• Shoot the car thieves before they run off the road and kill innocent people. 
• It is only the do-gooders that will moan.
•  

• Don't the police ever shoot the right person - It's the police that are a threat to public safety.

This is English Law - When the police kill innocent men, women and children. THE LAW IS THERE TO PROTECT THE POLICE NOT TO SEE JUSTICE FOR THE VICTIM OR THEIR FAMILY Who represents the VICTIM and their family in an English court when an innocent man or women is killed by the police NOT THE POLICE and the CPS - they have always refused to charge the officer/s

My LIFE WAS IN DANGER  No police officer has ever been -- killed or injured -- wearing a bullet proof jacket and helmet So why did. The police and the CPS very quickly arrest --- charge --- and convict  "BARRY LEE HASTINGS" and "CARL LINDSAY" and "TONY MARTIN" who are in 'Real danger of their own and families life' ... against armed burglars. Put in prison for defending themselves and their families in their own house    OBVIOUSLY THE SAME LAW that protects police from killing innocent people in their own homes  DOESN'T APPLY TO INNOCENT LAW ABIDING CITIZENS PROTECTING THEMSELVES AND THEIR FAMILIES    From being attacked by 'Armed burglars' ....  IN THEIR OWN HOME

This is the unconvincing 'Quote' every officer gives Read from the police manual  A judge will except this because this is the 'Loop Hole' the law has so police cannot be found guilty of shooting .... or in any way .... killing innocent people    Unlawful act/constructive manslaughter A defendant is guilty of this sub-category of manslaughter if he intentionally does an act which is unlawful and dangerous which inadvertently causes death (DPP v Newbury [1977] AC 500 HL) It is not necessary to prove that the unlawful and dangerous act was aimed at any person, or in particular the person whose death was caused (R v Mitchell [1983] QB 741 CA) Neither is it necessary to prove that the defendant knew that his act was dangerous or unlawful (Newbury) and (R v 0wino, unreported 13 March 1995) 'Danger' is determined objectively. The act must be such that all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognize that must subject the other person to at least the risk of some harm, even if not serious harm (R v Church [1966] 1 QB 59) The above cases show that the law doesn't apply to English police

Next page Police Shop around for experts

To Home page