Ashamed to be human

I think that once something as emotive as this has been reported in the press, the police have no choice but to hold a disciplinary inquiry.

I can't believe they did it for fun - but with all this secrecy and internal discipline business we don't get to hear their side of the story.

The reason this has just hit the news again (as durhamjen said, the story was first in the news in July when it happened) is because the CPS has just reached it's decision not to prosecute the officers involved. Instead, they have recommended that they should be dealt with under disciplinary procedures, with the Officers facing a hearing for gross misconduct.

I certainly don't want to see a witch hunt against these Officers and am quite willing to accept that there may have been sound reasons why they acted as they did. However, I would like to think that if there were, these would have already been put forward and no report would have gone to the CPS in the first place. The fact that disciplinary proceedings have been recommended suggests that there is cause for concern and a case to answer. Of course, the outcome is unknown and I don't wish to speculate about what it might be. I have a lot of sympathy with the police, having worked closely with them throughout my career, and I'm sorry for the stress these Officers may be going through, but I'm glad we take these matters seriously and I still maintain that it's right the incident should be properly investigated.

www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/11634868.Police_officers_accused_of_bludgeoning_deer_to_death_with_crowbars_face_gross_misconduct_hearing___but_no_criminal_charges/

I asked my hubby what he would have done when he was a police officer.

He answered as I suspected and as I believe I would have done being responsible for the task in hand which was to eliminate the suffering of the animal as quickly as possible using whatever method I felt necessary.

He said a police officer with fire arms training would be permitted to shoot an animal if there was a cause of endangering life, e.g a rampaging bull escaped from a market.

If there was no immediate danger to life he would have to speak to the control room for them to obtain permission from a superior officer to 'discharge the weapon'. If he thought at any time the animal was in obvious pain and distress he would act with immediate effect using a heavy implement e.g a spade or crowbar if the response was taking any undue length of time he felt necessary. To do anything other would have been cruelty to the animal!!!!

The precursor to this happening is if the animal was injured but he felt could benefit from vetinary care he would ask the control room for the RSPCA or a Vet to be called out and stayed with the animal unless called to an emergency..

To continually attack the police, government any establishment is a hobby for some people who have relatively no understanding of what the job entails. They are willing to condemn at the drop of a hat believing them to be evil b----------.

If you were not there and rely on photos, videos, newspapers to provide the information then you cannot get a full understanding of how the story truly unfolded.

I know that given the circumstance of watching a wounded animal in distress I too would put it out of it's misery and I have done so. I once ran over a cat that was so severely injured, it's head was practically hanging off and smashed to pieces.

Should I have waited out of some form of niceity or supposed decency to wait for the RSPCA? I think I would have been liable for prosecution for cruelty to an animal because that is what my inaction to kill it would have been. I simply could not watch the animal suffering for one moment longer than was necessary, I guess some would have acted differently but I think they would have been cruel.

Tegan, I remember, years ago now (about 20!) I took myself off on a little adventure and cycled from Oxford to Cheltenham on my own, stayed overnight and cycled back next day. My hairdresser at the time had a sister who was a policewoman and when I told her what I'd done, there was a sharply indrawn breath and she said something like 'oh my god, if you heard the tales my sister tells, you wouldn't have done that'.

On the one hand, I think the police have become more withdrawn and tbh, thuggish, on the other, having observed various things going on on the street with the police involved, I wouldn't want their job for anything! I do agree with your general point about the need for an enquiry though as with so many needed enquiries these days.

Have either of the officers given a reason for the chosen method?

Anyone who knows anyone who happens to be a policeman is aware of the sort of thing they see on a day to day basis [I won't mention anything here but just use your imagination]. I sometimes wonder how they can do the job at all. And then the newspapers pick up on a story like this. I do agree that there needs to be and enquiry and if they were needlessly cruel they should be punished for it but it's like everything else, social workers etc etc they're always looking for a sensational story [especially when there's nothing newsworthy happening]. Even The Observer, when there's nothing to put in the headlines will drag up a health scare from the BMJ that is actually old news to put on the front page [causing numerous panic phone calles to GP's the following day].

sorry that should be 'brings about a swift death' above not safe. Damn predictive text!!

Not wanting to add to any degeneration.....I'm slightly surprised that this happened last July but is 'news' now. To reply to an earlier comment, I think you can't rely on any newspaper, local or national, to give you the truth and depending on the newspaper it might be more or less skewed to its readership!

I see from just a little research that it is the case as an earlier poster said that a policeman who uses a firearm must get authorisation from a higher up officer first (rank of lieutenant or higher).

Also in the course of my research I discovered this www.thedeerinitiative.co.uk/uploads/guides/127.pdf which is actually fascinating and contains more information than I ever knew existed about 'Culling of Deer involved in collisions with vehicles'. There are a few lines about safe use of firearms with regard to safety of others etc which the police would presumably know about and also how to kill a deer with a knife. It says that 'Legally any method (of killing) is acceptable to prevent suffering provided that it brings about a safe death'.

I find myself returning to the thought that I wasn't there so it's hard to know what else to say but in all honesty, it must have been messy, maybe it was a panic move on the part of the police, I can't imagine they took any pleasure in doing it. Is there any more to say?

Boy, has this thread degenerated!

I love a 'technical term'.

Sounds really uncomfortable.

gets on my tits

Thank you Riverwalk

That's alright then.

I guess we all see things differently.

I find it very useful when a poster summarises a link .... saves you having to read it if it's very long. You can then decide whether to delve further.

It's a million times more considerate than posters who just post a link and a thread title!

You reckon that doc is a medical researcher?!

It wasn't really a "veiled comment". It was very obvious.

I don't think I know how to "get over myself".

And presumably you know a great deal more about metabolism than all the medical researchers who have written articles in the subject.

jingl it gets on my tits when people make veiled references to other posters when they could perfectly well address their remarks directly to the poster.

Personally I find it annoying when people just post a link without any explanation. The reason I try to give a brief summary of the link is so people can decide whether they want to bother reading it or not.

Get over yourself.

Calories are calories. Makes no difference where they come from.

Elegran

At last. [Hallelujah emoticon]

It makes me a bit cross when someone posts a link to an article, and then continues, "Basically what he is saying..." As if other posters' comprehension is just not up to it.

I think you could get fat on a surfeit of pork chops.

I think most of us respect the people but don't think very highly of their religious practices.