>This is correct, but anyone in England has the right to use such force as
>is reasonable in the prevention of crime or in the apprehension of an
>offender. This includes lethal force i.e. killing.
>
>I would think the police are off the hook. And so would I be, if I
>mistakenly but honestly killed someone whom I thought was about to kill me
>or a third party.
>
>These rules are quite reasonable in themselves. So, although it is correct
>to say that the police have no special right to kill, the point is that
>were I or you in their shoes, knowing what they thought they knew (the last
>point is an hypothesis. I don't know what they thought they knew.), we
>would have the right to shot dead the suspected bomber.
Sure, but I think there is a debate to be had at least. For instance, the necessity and proportionality of the police use of force is to be judged on the facts as they believed them to be: R v Williams 78 Cr. App R 276. (Incidentally, I'm not a lawyer, merely a minor autodidact, so I'll defer to your expertise should you challenge me on that). That allows for a lot of latitude, and in a court of law it is highly unlikely that the police involved would be charged with murder. My view is, on the basis of what I have read, that they had very little basis for believing this individual to be a suicide bomber. If I understand correctly, then they followed someone about whom they had no information because he emerged from a block of flats that they were surveilling - where they didn't know which flat exactly they were to be watching. If the police believed that his skin colour, his emergence from this block of flats, and his subsequent flight on being challenged (by officers who appear not to have identified themselves), made it likely that he was a suicide bomber, this will probably get them off. Is it reasonable, however? I have serious doubts.
_________________________________________________________________ Winks & nudges are here - download MSN Messenger 7.0 today! http://messenger.msn.co.uk