Unlawful killing

Today the inquest finally ended. 10 years late, but better late than never.

Ok, what I don't get is how a highly trained driver, and not the only security officer on duty can manage to get away with:

• Drinking on duty
• Being on Prozac
• Crashing at only 65mph

Maybe I have too elivated a view of British security services and the level of training they receive, but I would have expected better. I.e. I get the impression that the search for a scape-goat ended with the driver who is not even able to defend himself.

If anything good did come out of this mess of a "trial", it is that Paul Burrell was seen for the man he really is. It was, at the very least, alleged that he:

• Lied
• Destroyed evidence
• Gave a false impression of his relationship with Princess Diana
• Stole evidence
• Stole Princess Diana's personal belongings
• Fled to the USA where he stays in his self inflicted exile

One thing is for certain. We still don't have a version of events that can be trusted upon.

A sad day for British justice.

Police 'justified' in killing man

Over the past months a lot of coverage has been given on both the BBC National news and Look North, that covers the East Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire area.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/humber/7324175.stm

In brief: guy on whatever drugs with a record of psychotic behaviour is chased down by police, surrounded and then shot 6 times at point blank range.

A jury has decided in an 8-1 vote that the police actions were justified.

However, the way I see it, a few questions remain both unasked and unanswered:

1. As the trained-armed-police officers had Simon Murden completely surrounded, how was it possible for them not to notice that he was not carrying a gun? I can only assume that the BBC news storties that reported him wielding a gun were based on police reports?
   
2. Given that Mr Murden was on foot and at very best only able to approach the police at a running speed, why did the marksmen wait until he was at point black range before taking sufficient action? I.e. plastic bullets were used, didn't work and yet it was only when Mr Murden was at point blank range that live ammunition was used.
   
3. Why did the police fire all 6 rounds into Mr Murden's chest? Just one round into his legs would surely have been enough to render him safe?
   

Having heard what evidence was given on the BBC News channels, why were none of the above questions ever asked?

The impression given, and I hope it is not the case, that the BBC News were not reporting in a truly indepenent way and were either in cahoots with the police, or were too scared to ask the questions.

This handling of this incident by the BBC and the police is deeply worrying in a free and democratic society.