Jermaine Baker shooting: Firearms officer arrested (UK) What????

originally posted by: Jonjonj
I do not think there is such a thing as a lawful killing in British law. There may be such a thing as a a death by lawful intervention, but I am no lawyer.

Murder in the UK is defined as being committed where "a person of sound mind and discretion unlawfully kills any reasonable creature in being and under the Queen's peace with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm".

"Unlawfully" here means without legal justification, therefore if any legal justification (including defence of self or others) can be found to apply, it means it is lawful.

At the risk of sounding a bit circular, lawful killing is any killing that is not unlawful!

"Lawful homicide", though not often used as a term, refers to deaths arising from medical or surgical intervention - because these are lawful, notwithstanding any negligence issues - or from execution pursuant to a sentence of the court. The latter, obviously, doesn't really stand anymore.

The officer will need to be cleared probably by the proper courts and that will be after the coroners court, probably an internal inquiry and then finally by a proper court of law in front of a beak. Its paperwork trail but all he'll be firing for the next few months is emails from home and thats if he fancies being a firearms officer after this as its a volunteer position so theres no requirement as part of the job for the average copper to take up firearms training (a lot do have some to be able to ensure weapons/the public are safe and preserve evidence) till the proper people turn up.

In criminal law in the UK -

Criminal Law Act 1967

Section 3 replaces the common law rules on self-defence, such as the duty to retreat. It simply requires that any force used must be "reasonable in the circumstances." It is still in force today and states:
“ 3. — (1) A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.

(2) Subsection (1) above shall replace the rules of the common law on the question when force used for a purpose mentioned in the subsection is justified by that purpose.

From what I understand the guy is not charged as the review of his use of force is ongoing. A gun was recovered from the car with the suspect. Unless their is some major bombshell I don't see him being prosecuted by the Crown.

Thanks to EvillerBob and Xcathdra for clearing up the legal aspect.

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
If the killing went down the way it is claimed, why would he be arrested?

The IPCC must have reason to arrest, there is always an inquiry when firearms are used by officers, let's hope it there is no cover up. I'm sure there won't be, but further riots on the streets of London is something the Government can do without.

No, not at all. Arrest does not indicate any wrongdoing. However, if they think an investigation is needed, then they need to collect evidence. The only way they can do that legally is to arrest the person in question so he can give a formal statement/interview under caution.

It's the same as recent cases of people defending themselves after being attacked, ending up killing the assailant. In all cases, the "victim" was arrested and interviewed under caution. In most, they are released without charge as long as the act was justified - example 1, example 2

originally posted by: Jonjonj
I do not think there is such a thing as a lawful killing in British law. There may be such a thing as a a death by lawful intervention, but I am no lawyer.

There is actually precisely such a concept - Mark Duggan, for example, was found to have been "lawfully killed".