Armed Police

[HelenM]

Originally Posted by darthmoll

i hope it is to ensure your dad/husband/lover/brother doesnt get killed the same way

Your point is facile.

What if my dad/husband/lover/brother is shot by a loony with a gun because the police marksman hesitated in pulling his trigger - perhaps with the recriminations from this case ringing in his ears?

All we can ask of these guys is that they make their best call in difficult situations. Sometimes they will get it wrong - and that is desperately desperately sad for all concerned. But it is better that they are there, equipped and prepared to do their job than not. What is the alternative? Bin the police marksmen and allow whoever wants to to run rampage on the streets a free path? That's not an option which appeals to me - at all.

[darthmoll]

Originally Posted by HelenM

Your point is facile.

What if my dad/husband/lover/brother is shot by a loony with a gun because the police marksman hesitated in pulling his trigger - perhaps with the recriminations from this case ringing in his ears?

All we can ask of these guys is that they make their best call in difficult situations. Sometimes they will get it wrong - and that is desperately desperately sad for all concerned. But it is better that they are there, equipped and prepared to do their job than not. What is the alternative? Bin the police marksmen and allow whoever wants to to run rampage on the streets a free path? That's not an option which appeals to me - at all.

What rubbish, we have to ensure that the people that are paid to protect us do not get carried away. I did not suggest we get rid of them, but they have to answer for their actions, even if they make a mistake.

[dave archer]

Originally Posted by HelenM

All we can ask of these guys is that they make their best call in difficult situations. Sometimes they will get it wrong - and that is desperately desperately sad for all concerned. But it is better that they are there, equipped and prepared to do their job than not. What is the alternative? Bin the police marksmen and allow whoever wants to to run rampage on the streets a free path? That's not an option which appeals to me - at all.

I agree in the main, a difficult and thankless job, and I don't think anyone is suggesting we should get rid. However what I objected to in this thread (beyond the callous references to "tapping" etc, and calling the innocent victim "some nonce") is the implication, in tones at least, that ALL we should do is ask them to do their best, and that no inquiries should be held after a shooting.

Every shooting should be looked at to ensure guidelines were followed. Mistakes are going to happen, we can't and shouldn't ask these officers to be perfect, we should appreciate the difficult nature and highly upsetting outcomes of the job. But that doesn't remove the need for checks and balances. We can't have armed police able to shoot people without any checks. And if the checks find suspicious circumstances (not honest mistakes) then action should be taken.

Personally I don't want anyone on the streets with a gun, able to shoot people knowing there'd be no questions asked. I think some who've posted the more gung ho "he was asking for it" stuff haven't thought it through.

Dave.

I have given up on this thread as some folk seem to have lost the plot.

[darthmoll]

Originally Posted by dave archer

I agree in the main, a difficult and thankless job, and I don't think anyone is suggesting we should get rid. However what I objected to in this thread (beyond the callous references to "tapping" etc, and calling the innocent victim "some nonce") is the implication, in tones at least, that ALL we should do is ask them to do their best, and that no inquiries should be held after a shooting.

Every shooting should be looked at to ensure guidelines were followed. Mistakes are going to happen, we can't and shouldn't ask these officers to be perfect, we should appreciate the difficult nature and highly upsetting outcomes of the job. But that doesn't remove the need for checks and balances. We can't have armed police able to shoot people without any checks. And if the checks find suspicious circumstances (not honest mistakes) then action should be taken.

Personally I don't want anyone on the streets with a gun, able to shoot people knowing there'd be no questions asked. I think some who've posted the more gung ho "he was asking for it" stuff haven't thought it through.

Dave.

I agree

[Mr T.]

Officers to stay suspended over fatal shooting
By John Steele, Home Affairs Correspondent
(Filed: 10/11/2004)

Scotland Yard has upheld the suspension of two armed officers involved in the shooting of a man who was carrying a table leg that they took to be a shotgun, despite a "strike" last week by colleagues who refused to carry weapons in protest.

Chief Insp Neil Sharman and Pc Kevin Fagan were suspended from police duties after a jury in the second inquest into the death of Harry Stanley in east London in 1999 returned a verdict of unlawful killing.

The Crown Prosecution Service, which has twice decided that the officers should face no charges, is considering whether to change its conclusion.

More than 120 fellow armed officers, who last week took the unprecedented step of refusing to conduct armed duties, demanded that the force reinstate the officers, who had previously been on "non-operational duties".

Pc Fagan's wife, Alison, also a serving officer, said yesterday that her husband had been treated as "an embarrassment" by the force.

However, last night the Deputy Commissioner, and Commissioner designate, of the Met, Sir Ian Blair, confirmed in a letter to the officers that the suspensions would stand.

He said: "Conscious as I am of the previous lack of evidence of wrongdoing by these two officers, the Met cannot ignore the fact that a lawfully sworn jury has come to the conclusion that Harry Stanley was unlawfully killed and that they reached this conclusion on directions that they could only find such a verdict if it was proved beyond reasonable doubt.

"The two officers remain subject to an allegation of the utmost seriousness, which, if proved, will lead to a severe penalty. Under those circumstances, it is the case that it is contrary to the public interest for the two officers to remain available for duty. They must therefore remain suspended."

Sir Ian added that the officers "should not lose financially". He will review the suspension every month and urged the CPS to make a decision as soon as possible.

Mr Stanley, 46, a father of three and a grandfather, was shot in September 1999 after a call to police suggesting that a man in a pub in Hackney had a shotgun.

In fact he had a repaired table leg wrapped in a bag, which the officers mistook for a gun. Pc Fagan shot him in the hand but Chief Insp Sharman hit him in the head.

The Metropolitan Police Federation, the officers' "union", said last night that the decision not to rescind the suspensions was "grossly unfair".

Mrs Fagan told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "The senior management from both my husband's department and my department have not been helpful at all. It's been a long, hard struggle. There's been a lot of bitterness.

"I have every sympathy with [Mr Stanley's] family. They have lost a husband and nobody wants to be in that position. [But] nobody knows our side of the story.

"Police officers are human; they don't have X-ray vision. They didn't know what was in that bag. Was my husband to be shot dead before his colleague could fire? Kevin thought there was a firearm in that bag and he reacted."

[Mr T.]

Suspended police back at work

Two armed police officers who shot dead a man carrying a table leg in east London are to return to work following a review of all suspensions at Scotland Yard, a Metropolitan Police spokesman said yesterday.

Insp Neil Sharman and Pc Kevin Fagan were suspended last month after an inquest ruled that they unlawfully killed Harry Stanley, 46, five years ago. The move sparked a "strike" by the Met's SO19 firearms unit.

[cdiver2]

Originally Posted by Brass Monkey

It’s amazing how quickly you sober up if you hear someone shout “ARMED POLICE”.

Dave.

I have had to chalange many people in my time and most all of them drunk or sober have turned round when challenged...I never shot an unarmed person.

The first rule for anyone challenging a suspect is do it from cover if possible and if there is more than one of you dont stand beside each other this makes it harder for the suspect to find you if he going to shoot and gives you more time to make the desion to shoot or not.

I was involved in the training of armed police officers. Part of the training was a slide or movie projected on to a screen when the weapon was fired the frame was frozen and a light from the back of the screen showed where the round hit. The officers were marked for accuracy and time, you would be supprised at how many innocents were shot. And yes you do get the gung ho types.

If the man in question aimed the leg like a weapon then it was a fair shoot.
If he did not and the police made a bad decision then its manslaughter.
If they new he was not armed then it was murder.

[Mr T.]

Who would you shoot?

Options on the spot?

[Fiji Dave]

Originally Posted by Mr T.

Who would you shoot?

Options on the spot?

Bren,

are we allowed to reload?