From: RustyBullethole, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There is a big problem in granting anonymity to police
officers in such cases. Given that in most police
shootings the only persons to witness the event are the
officers themselves, any details of the shooting are
obviously privy to those at the scene.
More often than not defendants will incriminate
themselves, a bit of careless talk to a passing
acquantance often forms the cornerstone of a
conviction. The Michael Stone case is an example -
a conviction based almost entirely on what he said
to a stranger (fellow prisoner) whilst in prison.
Anonymity would have prevented his conviction. Our
fellow prisoner would not have said "hang on I know
that name/face, he said to me .........".
I am not suggesting that this may be the case in the
Cornwall incident, but granting anonymity denies the
judicial process of the "seeds" of evidence
that may be linked to a name or face.
The idea of revenge attacks doesn't ring true, if I
remember rightly the police went "me too" on this
shortly after a high profile case involving
members of the SAS granted anonymity - obviously the
chances of a revenge attack against a member of the
SAS are an order of magnitude greater than those
against a police officer. Prior to the granting of
anonymity (its been around about 5 years) I can't
think of a single instance of a police officer
being subject to a serious revenge attack.
Rusty
--
They were in Northern Ireland, although I tend to
agree that a revenge attack in this case would be
pretty remote.
Steve.
Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org
List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
