From: Steve Walker on 4 Mar 2010 09:19
> Steve Walker wrote:
>> OK, let's play :
>> Imagine for a moment that a 'sensitive activity' was underway on that
>> day, and that armed security teams were deployed. Imagine that they
>> saw a 4wd charge through the gate and onto the runway, brushing aside
>> airfield staff who were frantically gesticulating to stop. And they
>> thought "Glasgow Airport!", and they opened fire to halt the vehicle.
>> You would now be telling us that Trevor Morse had caused his own
>> death, and that no blame could be attached to the
>> police/military/security who shot him. Don't you *dare* pretend
>> otherwise, Kev.
> But no such situation or conditions were pertaining at the time - and so
> your scenario is irrelevant to what actually occurred.
Don't evade the question - we both know that the British police are capable
killing people in a wide variety of situations (and can occasionally
surprise us all with some new zany tactic like killing each other).
So come on - if Trevor Morse had been shot dead by Police would you have
From: Steve Walker on 4 Mar 2010 09:26
> But if there was something sufficiently covert going on to warrant the
> presence of armed officers, then the scenario would be totally different,
> and shooting the supporter believing him to be a possible terrorist may
> have been justifiable.
Thank you for replying honestly.
And if that had happened, I would've said it was another example of shameful
police killing (mentioning Harry Stanley & Charles De Menezes no doubt,
because people like me tend to go on about those cases).
And then you would've said that they put themselves in harm's way by their
own aggressive/suspicious behaviour, or that the Police had to do what they
thought was best in split second, etc.
So my question is why you don't extend that 'benefit of the doubt' to a
gyrocopter pilot who appareas to have sincerely believed he was facing
imminent & serious assault?
From: The Todal on 4 Mar 2010 09:30
"Steve Walker" <spam-trap(a)beeb.net> wrote in message
> The Todal wrote:
>> "Steve Walker" <spam-trap(a)beeb.net> wrote in message
>>> If I was the pilot (who apparently isn't an activist) then I would be
>>> seriously fearful for my safety in that situation,
>> I think that may actually be the main issue in the case. See the BBC
> Interesting -
> Yesterday the hunt supporter was quoted as saying "The gyrocopter
> started and it moved forward and hit Trevor." She said it initially nudged
> him but, despite repeated requests for him to stand clear of the aircraft,
> Mr Morse stood his ground....
> (www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article7048129.ece) ++++
> That's a slow, close-range, eyeballing confrontation.
> Your BBC article from the previous day has "Mr Evans said ...Mr
> Griffiths had not gently inched his way in the gyrocopter towards Mr Morse
> but had travelled at speed. "We say the defendant deliberately chose to
> drive quickly at Mr Morse and face the consequences, when he could have
> driven slowly towards Mr Morse until he had a gap."
> (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventry_warwickshire/8546071.stm )
> ++++ That's a high-speed dash to get through a perceived gap.
> Those seem to be quite inconsistent versions - perhaps we have to wait for
> the video to arrive on Youtube... :o)
I think it is probably inevitable in a criminal trial that there will be
different versions of what happened and, whilst it is said that the video
shown to the jury has been edited, I am sure they will be shown whatever
footage helps them to decide what happens even if they are spared the gory
The fact that the prosecutor declares to the jury what he thinks the
evidence will prove, does not mean that his prediction will necessarily be
accurate. And frustratingly of course, as the jury only has to say guilty
or not guilty we may never know precisely what version they have chosen to
From: Steve Walker on 4 Mar 2010 09:32
The Todal wrote:
> Moving forward slowly so as to nudge someone out of the way might be
> reasonable and might negate the inference of gross negligence - after
> all, it's a question of what the defendant ought to have foreseen, not
> merely a question of what injury was actually caused. But evidently the
> prosecution deny that the defendant moved forward slowly.
> The report on the BBC site says:
> Mr Evans [prosecuting] said there was no doubt that Mr Morse wanted to
> stop the gyrocopter from taking off. He also said Mr Griffiths had not
> gently inched his way in the gyrocopter towards Mr Morse but had
> travelled at speed. "We say the defendant deliberately chose to drive
> quickly at Mr Morse and face the consequences, when he could have driven
> slowly towards Mr Morse until he had a gap."
Yes, but as I've posted lower down, Mr Morse's companion yesterday stated
Mr Morse, drove the Warwickshire Hunt�s Land Rover within inches of the
gyrocopter�s nose in an attempt to prevent it taking off. <and> �The
gyrocopter started and it moved forward and hit Trevor.� She said it
initially nudged him but, despite repeated requests for him to stand clear
of the aircraft, Mr Morse stood his ground.
This appears contradictory (unless the pilot first tried to nudge and then
backed-up before charging forward again at speed).
Actually, can a gyro reverse on the ground anyway...?
From: Steve Walker on 4 Mar 2010 09:33
Mike Ross wrote:
> Consider: the primary authority responsible for bringing prosecutions
> with respect to aviation matters is the CAA, not the police, and they're
> not known for regulating with a light hand! Prosecutions are regularly
> brought for various offences which could be categorised generally as
> 'dangerous flying'. And they're jealous of their 'turf'. Yet they did
> not prosecute in this case,
Is that correct, or are they just awaiting the criminal outcome?