The Guardian holds itself out as some sort of paragon of virtuous journalism when it is absolutely nothing of the sort. Perhaps it once was but not any longer.
It is becoming reprehensible, quite honestly. It seems to me to be going out of its way to publish click-bait nonsense in exactly the manner it accuses publications on the opposite end of the scale as doing.
They - along with a lot of the media - are continually trying to push this as some sort of race inspired state-condoned murder of an innocent purely based on his skin colour/race. They are using race in the same way as they claim to rail against.
This was an exceptionally violent, career criminal with a sting of stabbings, shootings and drug offences in his past. He was using a vehicle known to have been linked to shootings (at least one of which he personally carried out) in an attempt to evade lawful arrest and endanger the lives of police officers who were carrying out their lawful duty by using his vehicle as a potentially lethal weapon, not to mention anyone else who may have crossed his path.
The Guardian has a particular hard on for shittting on the police. Ok they may begrudgingly report this officer is innocent... between three articles about how 'the black community' feel about an officer getting off - by being found not guilty of murder by a jury of his peers.
But then they gotta get back in their ACAB bag right after.
Exclusive: Campaigners say calls to redraw rules are cynical attempt to secure ‘effective immunity’ for officers
www.theguardian.com
Read that and you get the impression police are pushing for the power to eat babies, shoot minorities and run over old ladies with total immunity. Actually pushing for:
Anonymity until conviction for offences alleged to have happened as an extension of their duty. I.e like this case.
Protection under the law for breaking traffic laws when on blues, which the gov trains and employs them to do. Currently, if something tragic happens, the law has no provision to differentiate a cop responding to an emergency from if you did 110 and blew through red lights. Most judges will make that distinction, but they aren't bound to it.
Make IOPC and CPS apply the same charging standards to cases where an officer is the suspect as they do to any member of the public. Blake is part of a common pattern. Cops don't get protection, their cases aren't written off. In general, the charging standard is notably lower with police and CPS
because nobody wants to be accused of letting off a fellow cop. Some people might find that hard to believe, but how many co-workers are you willing to risk a very public firing for?
That inquests into unlawful killings and self defence meets the criminal standard of evidence rather than the civil standard . Apparently 51% is enough for an inquest to officially find an officer responsible for an unlawful death, and 51% is also all that's needed to dismiss an officers claim of self defence.
You can make arguments against some of those requests, but they are very reasonable. Boiling down to, the same standards of evidence as everyone else gets and the law to take into account circumstances were the government literally trained and employed officers to do whatever landed them in court.
Not, as the Guardian would have you believe, fascist cops wanting sovereign immunity.
knowyourmeme.com
en.wikipedia.org
www.dailymail.co.uk
www.bbc.co.uk
