Oxford Law Professor on Menezes Killing:

[bemildred]

John Gardner is the Professor of Jurisprudence at the University of Oxford, and occasional Visiting Professor at Yale Law School.

Police state: Like many of my fellow-Londoners I am less alarmed by suicide bombers than I am by the police's Mossad-style execution of a 'suspect' (who turned out to be a completely innocent passer-by) on Friday 22 July. This is not because we are at greater risk of death at the hands of the police than at the hands of the bombers. (Both risks are pretty tiny, but of the two the risk posed by the police is clearly smaller). Rather, it is because, all else being equal, it is worse to be killed by one's friends than by one's enemies, and worse to be killed by people in authority than by people not in authority.

Here are some other important things to remember in thinking about the police actions of 22 July:
(1) There is no general legal duty to assist the police or to obey police instructions. Rice v Connolly <1966> 2 QB 414.
(2) There are special police powers to arrest and search. But there is no special police licence to injure or kill. If they injure or kill, the police need to rely on the same law as the rest of us.
(3) The law allows those who use force in prevention of crime to use only necessary and proportionate force. Jack Straw and Sir Ian Blair say that officers are under great pressure. But this is no excuse. In law, as in morality, being under extra pressure gives us no extra latitude for error in judging how much force is proportionate or necessary. R v Clegg <1995> 1 A.C. 482.

Users.ox.ac.uk

[mike_c]

1. kicking and recommending....

I especially liked this bit:

The law allows those who use force in prevention of crime to use only necessary and proportionate force. Jack Straw and Sir Ian Blair say that officers are under great pressure. But this is no excuse. In law, as in morality, being under extra pressure gives us no extra latitude for error in judging how much force is proportionate or necessary. R v Clegg <1995> 1 A.C. 482.

This is the answer to give everyone who justifies police violence-- or military war crimes, for that matter-- on the basis of the "great pressure" the perpetrators are under. We don't pay police to kill people to maintain the peace-- we pay them to maintain the peace without killing people (and "paying them" is used here as a metaphor for the social contract from which they draw their authority).

[wakeme2008]

2. problem is he is quoting US law vs UK law

there may be differences.

[bemildred]

4. RICE v. CONNOLLY.

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

<1966> 2 QB 414, <1966> 2 All ER 649, <1966> 3 WLR 17, 130 JP 322

HEARING-DATES: 3 May 1966

3 May 1966

CATCHWORDS:
Criminal Law -- Obstructing constable when in the execution of his duty -- Refusal to answer questions -- Whether wilful obstruction -- Police
Act 1964 (c. 48), s. 51 (3).

http://www.hrcr.org/safrica/arrested_rights/Rice_Connolly.htm

[K-W]

6. Why do you think those are US laws? EOM

[Frederik]

3. Thanks for this

I agree with the good professor in everything he says.

[Karenina]

5. Kick!

:kick: