Policeman to be charged for dual killing

**mongrel** · July 25, 2009, 04:30 PM

2 police dogs died through negligence.

Within one month of the killing the RSPCA (animal welfare to those outside the UK) have decided to prosecute. If found guilty the policeman could face jail time.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/ju...died-prosecute

It shows that us canines are still top dog. 954 humans have been killed in police custody in England and Wales since 1990, including shootings – with not a single successful prosecution for murder or manslaughter.

The person who killed Jean de Menezes seems to have got away with it. The IPCC are still deliberating over the G20 killing. Perhaps the RSPCA could lend them some investigators.

**s.rwitt** · July 25, 2009, 09:05 PM

954 humans have been killed in police custody in England and Wales since 1990, including shootings

In custody? That's strange.

**lordoftheT** · July 25, 2009, 09:14 PM

Originally Posted by s.rwitt

In custody? That's strange.

I think this would include deaths due to old age, illness, and suicide.

**mongrel** · July 26, 2009, 05:03 AM

Originally Posted by lordoftheT

I think this would include deaths due to old age, illness, and suicide.

I mean deaths that could have been avoided had they had not been in police custody or shot at. That would include illness and suicide, but not old age.

Here is a typical case from a few years back. The police involved were not charged with killing the person. Despite a fit young person with no apparent medical problems being killed by the actions of the police, the jury of at the trial could not find that the police used excessive force, the defence being that the officers were only following Home Office guidelines.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/au...bation.uknews2

**lordoftheT** · July 26, 2009, 05:47 AM

Originally Posted by mongrel

I mean deaths that could have been avoided had they had not been in police custody or shot at. That would include illness and suicide, but not old age.

Here is a typical case from a few years back. The police involved were not charged with killing the person. Despite a fit young person with no apparent medical problems being killed by the actions of the police, the jury of at the trial could not find that the police used excessive force, the defence being that the officers were only following Home Office guidelines.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/au...bation.uknews2

Hmm that is strange. How much of chance do you think there is of this "policy" changing anytime soon?

**nopasties** · July 25, 2009, 09:16 PM

The context of the article focused on the dogs as dying and suffering. I wonder if the judge looked at it as destruction of state or city property. It sucks but that is a valid arguement to suspend the guy or have lose his job. To throw him in jail based on what is written is too little. He must have been grossly negligent for the sentence to be just.

**s.rwitt** · July 25, 2009, 09:15 PM

He said killed.

**lordoftheT** · July 25, 2009, 09:18 PM

Originally Posted by s.rwitt

He said killed.

Well I hope that's what he meant or else I have a new found fear of the UK. As to the story this doesn't really surprise me. Nobody cares enough to do anything until the cute little doggies die.

**Каие** · July 26, 2009, 05:24 AM

Maybe dogs are seen as more important than socialists, ethnic minorities, immigrants and old people?

**Alsatian** · July 26, 2009, 08:10 AM

Originally Posted by Яome kb8

Maybe dogs are seen as more important than socialists, ethnic minorities, immigrants and old people?

Duh.

Dogs are man's best friend, I wouldn't say the same about the above groups

**Furious Mental** · July 26, 2009, 05:54 AM

It probably wouldn't make a difference, because, with all due respect to police officers, a significant are either complete idiots or authority craving sociopaths, at least according to such police officers as I have spoken to. Unfortunately, it's in the nature of the police force both to attract such unsuitable candidates and then protect them when they inevitably belt someone over the head too hard or do something else stupid or sadistic.

**magpie** · July 26, 2009, 06:21 AM

Well the dogs, were members of the police force, and this guy was in charge of them, and he screwed up and killed them. So what is the big deal! that he gets punished.
The people who died in police custody were not members of the police force! hence the different standards applied.

**mongrel** · July 26, 2009, 08:05 AM

Originally Posted by magpie

Well the dogs, were members of the police force, and this guy was in charge of them, and he screwed up and killed them. So what is the big deal! that he gets punished.
The people who died in police custody were not members of the police force! hence the different standards applied.

I think it is more due to the fact that the RSPCA takes no prisoners. If you are Stephen Gerrard you can get involved in a fight where someone gets a proper thrashing and argue nonetheless all was fine because it was meant in self defence. However if he whipped a whippet, boxed a boxer dog or beat the shih tzu out of a small dog, he would be serving time for sure.

**boofhead** · July 26, 2009, 06:35 AM

A couple I know left their dog in the car by accident the other month and went shopping for 3 hours. It died. Well, it was nearly dead so they rushed it to the vet where it carked it. They weren't charged with anything. It was just an accident.

**Carach** · July 26, 2009, 08:13 AM

dont know the details of how long the dogs were left in the vehicle, finding that out would help me come to a conclusion on whether or not this was all just a tragic acident (the officer did live with these dogs u know, and to go into such a job they tend to be animal-friendly in the first place afterall), or whether it really was negligence.