Body & Soul2 mins ago
Following The Paris Attacks, The Pm Has Ordered A Review Of Police Gun Use?
62 Answers
http://
/// BBC political correspondent Chris Mason says the atrocity has provoked deep soul-searching within government and among the police, raising the question of how the UK would cope if something similar were to happen here. ///
If recent police shootings are anything to go by, there would be numerous suspensions prior to lengthy and expensive inquiries.
But we have to be very careful, when we have Labour warning, of the possible damage to community relations.
Best to make firearms illegal for the cops, we don't want to upset the 'community' now do we?
/// BBC political correspondent Chris Mason says the atrocity has provoked deep soul-searching within government and among the police, raising the question of how the UK would cope if something similar were to happen here. ///
If recent police shootings are anything to go by, there would be numerous suspensions prior to lengthy and expensive inquiries.
But we have to be very careful, when we have Labour warning, of the possible damage to community relations.
Best to make firearms illegal for the cops, we don't want to upset the 'community' now do we?
Answers
There were only about 15 replies when I last looked at this. I’d composed a reply but called away. I don’t think the debate has moved on much since then so here it is. “…do you think the police should be questioned as to their reasons for discharging a firearm or no?” Yes. A quick debrief back at the nick. A report from each of those involved. A quick...
18:42 Sun 20th Dec 2015
Balders
From the other OP.
//Last time a police officer was treated unfairly by the IPCC who pre judged a firearms incident many surrendered their "Authorisation cards". It was not worth the grief volunteering for dangerous firearms duty and then getting ill judged flack when the firearm is used. //
I predicted that a couple of days ago. As I said earlier. Bound to happen ! :-(
From the other OP.
//Last time a police officer was treated unfairly by the IPCC who pre judged a firearms incident many surrendered their "Authorisation cards". It was not worth the grief volunteering for dangerous firearms duty and then getting ill judged flack when the firearm is used. //
I predicted that a couple of days ago. As I said earlier. Bound to happen ! :-(
Yep, that's the one
///Their anger has been sparked by the way the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) used a community meeting last Thursday to publicly announce his arrest. In particular, they feel comments made at the meeting by IPCC Commissioner Cindy Butts appeared to ‘give the impression’ that the unnamed officer was guilty///
ANOTHEOLDGIT wrote, 'So a mass terrorist attack is not a war situation?
And in such a situation the police are in fact 'soldiers' and no in such situations the police should not be questioned each and every time they discharge their firearm, it is better for a few terrorists to go down than scores of innocent people killed in a shopping mall.'
What if a bobby who had only just received firearms training shot dead a member of the public instead of a terrorist? As you say the bobby is a "soldier" in a "war" what would you say to the dead person's family? " Really sorry but hey, it's war, mistakes happen!"
And in such a situation the police are in fact 'soldiers' and no in such situations the police should not be questioned each and every time they discharge their firearm, it is better for a few terrorists to go down than scores of innocent people killed in a shopping mall.'
What if a bobby who had only just received firearms training shot dead a member of the public instead of a terrorist? As you say the bobby is a "soldier" in a "war" what would you say to the dead person's family? " Really sorry but hey, it's war, mistakes happen!"
There were only about 15 replies when I last looked at this. I’d composed a reply but called away. I don’t think the debate has moved on much since then so here it is.
“…do you think the police should be questioned as to their reasons for discharging a firearm or no?”
Yes. A quick debrief back at the nick. A report from each of those involved. A quick assessment by a senior officer to establish whether the firer had “an honest and instinctive belief” that opening fire was reasonable (which should invariably produce a positive answer). A written report to “upstairs”. Job done.
What should not happen is that, within a very short time of the event, the officer involved should be arrested, helping the police with their enquiries: “The IPCC has launched a criminal homicide investigation into the death - which could see the police face murder or manslaughter charges…”. And this most certainly should not be done (as I am certain with this case) to appease "the community":
It is absolutely ludicrous to send armed police on an operation to deal with violent criminals and then arrest them on suspicion of murder upon their return. What will happen should this continue is that police officers will refuse to bear arms (which it seems might be about to happen again). If that’s what the country wants then the authorities need to do nothing. If not, a rapid review of policy is required (not one that will report is three or four years’ time). That policy should say that unless a suspicion arises from the debriefing I mentioned above that anything other than honest action within the law had taken place then that will be the end of enquiries. If that does not satisfy the “community” that’s a little unfortunate.
Senior officers need to support their troops, not look to hang one of them out to dry immediately “the community” gets a little upset.
“…do you think the police should be questioned as to their reasons for discharging a firearm or no?”
Yes. A quick debrief back at the nick. A report from each of those involved. A quick assessment by a senior officer to establish whether the firer had “an honest and instinctive belief” that opening fire was reasonable (which should invariably produce a positive answer). A written report to “upstairs”. Job done.
What should not happen is that, within a very short time of the event, the officer involved should be arrested, helping the police with their enquiries: “The IPCC has launched a criminal homicide investigation into the death - which could see the police face murder or manslaughter charges…”. And this most certainly should not be done (as I am certain with this case) to appease "the community":
It is absolutely ludicrous to send armed police on an operation to deal with violent criminals and then arrest them on suspicion of murder upon their return. What will happen should this continue is that police officers will refuse to bear arms (which it seems might be about to happen again). If that’s what the country wants then the authorities need to do nothing. If not, a rapid review of policy is required (not one that will report is three or four years’ time). That policy should say that unless a suspicion arises from the debriefing I mentioned above that anything other than honest action within the law had taken place then that will be the end of enquiries. If that does not satisfy the “community” that’s a little unfortunate.
Senior officers need to support their troops, not look to hang one of them out to dry immediately “the community” gets a little upset.
NJ; Yes, it's difficult to see how the charge of murder can be upheld, the dictionary definition being; "The killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life." - unless the law describes it differently.
I always thought the 'malice aforethought' angle was paramount in murder.
I always thought the 'malice aforethought' angle was paramount in murder.
Indeed it is, Khandro.
The IPCC statement was outrageous and prejudicial. It is quite true that their enquiries could lead to serious charges being laid (Though it is extremely difficult to understand how a murder charge could be sustained). It is equally true that such enquiries could exonerate those involved completely. Why was not his mentioned at the "community" meeting? Answer: because the statement was aimed to appease the "community" who once again were "tense".
The country needs to get a grip with this problem. Threatening (without justification) to stick manslaughter or murder charges on police officers who are sent to do a very difficult job, simply because these of "tensions in te community" will lead those officers to hand in their firearms cards. We'll see how "the community" eventually likes that.
The IPCC statement was outrageous and prejudicial. It is quite true that their enquiries could lead to serious charges being laid (Though it is extremely difficult to understand how a murder charge could be sustained). It is equally true that such enquiries could exonerate those involved completely. Why was not his mentioned at the "community" meeting? Answer: because the statement was aimed to appease the "community" who once again were "tense".
The country needs to get a grip with this problem. Threatening (without justification) to stick manslaughter or murder charges on police officers who are sent to do a very difficult job, simply because these of "tensions in te community" will lead those officers to hand in their firearms cards. We'll see how "the community" eventually likes that.
// The IPCC statement was outrageous and prejudicial. It is quite true that their enquiries could lead to serious charges being laid //
jesus someone ( Dahlia ) was seriously asking if this poster were a judge
hem hem
and got a suitably coy reply ( "could be" in case no one knows )
the difficulty when one is in an ongoing 'oops' situation such as happened in Charles Menenez or even Stephen Waldorf
is that a quick one-two by a senior police officer
does NOT allay the fears of the public ( that it might happen to them one day )
I see a police officer with a firearm and think automatically ( pun intended ) that my chances of walking out of the building has plummeted.
jesus someone ( Dahlia ) was seriously asking if this poster were a judge
hem hem
and got a suitably coy reply ( "could be" in case no one knows )
the difficulty when one is in an ongoing 'oops' situation such as happened in Charles Menenez or even Stephen Waldorf
is that a quick one-two by a senior police officer
does NOT allay the fears of the public ( that it might happen to them one day )
I see a police officer with a firearm and think automatically ( pun intended ) that my chances of walking out of the building has plummeted.
PP//I see a police officer with a firearm and think automatically ( pun intended ) that my chances of walking out of the building has plummeted.//
Being in the wrong place at the wrong time is what we all fear, these are known as Les risques de la vie - I might get plugged in the cross-fire, but without their presence I'm probably gonna get plugged anyway.
Being in the wrong place at the wrong time is what we all fear, these are known as Les risques de la vie - I might get plugged in the cross-fire, but without their presence I'm probably gonna get plugged anyway.
Quite agree, Khandro. I think my chances of being shot by a police officer are somewhat less than being shot by a villain or blown up by a terrorist bomb.
In the tragic case of de Menezes at Stockwell, Peter, a quick one-two by a senior officer would have revealed serious shortcomings (not least as soon as the identity and status of the victim had been established). Of course further enquiries would then be warranted. This was not the case in other examples, particularly the Mark Duggan affair.
Having said that, even in the Stockwell case it is unjustified to immediately assume that the armed officer had acted improperly or unlawfully simply because the wrong person was the target. At that time the country (and London in particular) was on high alert. The "community" was indeed tense quite justifiably having suffered, just a few days earlier, the 7/7 bombings. Fifty-odd people (including a close work colleague of mine who was blown up on the bus) lost their lives. It is easy to paw over these events for six months afterwards in the cosy surroundings of barristers' chambers, pompously announcing what could or should have been done. The officer who fired the fatal shots did not have that luxury. He was doing what he had been trained, instructed and equipped to do and tragically he and his team got it wrong.
We live in very troubled times and it is quite probable that events such as these are going to increase. If police officers who volunteer to carry guns stand likely to face serious criminal charges when all they have possibly done is made a mistake (and very often not even that) then do not be surprised if they hand in their tickets. If that what the country wants we need do nothing. Just carry on suspending those officers every time they fire a shot. To quell "tensions in the community" and announce that they are subject to criminal investigations “which may lead to manslaughter or murder charges”. Then see how many of them can still be bothered to do, on our behalf, what is a very stressful and dangerous job.
In the tragic case of de Menezes at Stockwell, Peter, a quick one-two by a senior officer would have revealed serious shortcomings (not least as soon as the identity and status of the victim had been established). Of course further enquiries would then be warranted. This was not the case in other examples, particularly the Mark Duggan affair.
Having said that, even in the Stockwell case it is unjustified to immediately assume that the armed officer had acted improperly or unlawfully simply because the wrong person was the target. At that time the country (and London in particular) was on high alert. The "community" was indeed tense quite justifiably having suffered, just a few days earlier, the 7/7 bombings. Fifty-odd people (including a close work colleague of mine who was blown up on the bus) lost their lives. It is easy to paw over these events for six months afterwards in the cosy surroundings of barristers' chambers, pompously announcing what could or should have been done. The officer who fired the fatal shots did not have that luxury. He was doing what he had been trained, instructed and equipped to do and tragically he and his team got it wrong.
We live in very troubled times and it is quite probable that events such as these are going to increase. If police officers who volunteer to carry guns stand likely to face serious criminal charges when all they have possibly done is made a mistake (and very often not even that) then do not be surprised if they hand in their tickets. If that what the country wants we need do nothing. Just carry on suspending those officers every time they fire a shot. To quell "tensions in the community" and announce that they are subject to criminal investigations “which may lead to manslaughter or murder charges”. Then see how many of them can still be bothered to do, on our behalf, what is a very stressful and dangerous job.
Going by the picture at the bottom of this page, they weren't exactly in "plain clothes": http://
If they are not in uniform but still using a rifle they can have a camera mounted on the rifle. And I would expect the guy to have a dashcam in his unmarked car (or one mounted in the overhead mirror if you want it to be hidden).
There needs to be camera footage of everything an armed officer does. Otherwise we are letting them get away with unlawful killings. If this isn't dealt with then I predict a[nother] riot!
If they are not in uniform but still using a rifle they can have a camera mounted on the rifle. And I would expect the guy to have a dashcam in his unmarked car (or one mounted in the overhead mirror if you want it to be hidden).
There needs to be camera footage of everything an armed officer does. Otherwise we are letting them get away with unlawful killings. If this isn't dealt with then I predict a[nother] riot!
“There needs to be camera footage of everything an armed officer does.”
Not as easy as it sounds (if you know much about covert police operations of the type under discussion here, scowie).
And how many of these “unlawful Killings” by police shooting have there been recently? To save you looking it up, in the past 20 years there have been, as far as I can see, six incidents where a person has been shot dead by the police:
- In 1997 David Ewin, a suspected car thief, was shot by a police officer. The officer was charged with murder and acquitted.
- In 2001 James Ashley was shot by Sussex police whilst naked in bed. A trial was held but halted with no convictions.
- In 2004 Harry Stanley was shot by police. An inquest verdict of unlawful killing was overturned by a judicial review.
- In 2005 Jean Charles de Menesez was shot by police after being mistaken for a terrorist suspect. An inquest jury returned an open verdict.
- In 2011 Mark Duggan was shot in Tottenham. An inquest jury returned a verdict of lawful killing.
- In 2013 Azelle Rodney was shot by police. An enquiry found it to be unlawful killing and a police officer was acquitted of murder.
Of these, the first three victims were white, the fourth Brazilian and the last two black.
So, just the one then (which I'll be the first to accept is one to many) which was not reinforced by a criminal conviction. This is hardly the mass slayings by an out of control gun-totting police force as some would have us believe.
As Khandro has rightly pointed out, life is risky. Armed police obviously increase that risk but it is obvious that they are needed to meet the increased threat of wrongdoers. “The community” needs to understand this and accept that occasionally (and tragically) people will be killed. Instead they threaten to kick off within days of an incident, long before the facts are established, and threats to arraign police officers are made without foundation to appease them. That’s why officers may hand in their tickets.
Not as easy as it sounds (if you know much about covert police operations of the type under discussion here, scowie).
And how many of these “unlawful Killings” by police shooting have there been recently? To save you looking it up, in the past 20 years there have been, as far as I can see, six incidents where a person has been shot dead by the police:
- In 1997 David Ewin, a suspected car thief, was shot by a police officer. The officer was charged with murder and acquitted.
- In 2001 James Ashley was shot by Sussex police whilst naked in bed. A trial was held but halted with no convictions.
- In 2004 Harry Stanley was shot by police. An inquest verdict of unlawful killing was overturned by a judicial review.
- In 2005 Jean Charles de Menesez was shot by police after being mistaken for a terrorist suspect. An inquest jury returned an open verdict.
- In 2011 Mark Duggan was shot in Tottenham. An inquest jury returned a verdict of lawful killing.
- In 2013 Azelle Rodney was shot by police. An enquiry found it to be unlawful killing and a police officer was acquitted of murder.
Of these, the first three victims were white, the fourth Brazilian and the last two black.
So, just the one then (which I'll be the first to accept is one to many) which was not reinforced by a criminal conviction. This is hardly the mass slayings by an out of control gun-totting police force as some would have us believe.
As Khandro has rightly pointed out, life is risky. Armed police obviously increase that risk but it is obvious that they are needed to meet the increased threat of wrongdoers. “The community” needs to understand this and accept that occasionally (and tragically) people will be killed. Instead they threaten to kick off within days of an incident, long before the facts are established, and threats to arraign police officers are made without foundation to appease them. That’s why officers may hand in their tickets.
Latest Posts
Crosswords3 mins ago
Wokery Comes To Tourism Agency...
News4 mins ago
Protesters Call For Islamic State In...
News6 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.