Armed Police

[aclivity]

There's been a lot on the news about the armed police (SO19?) in London withdrawing from armed duties in protest at the ruling that 2 of their number have been suspended. They were suspended after a ruling that someone who was shot 5 years ago had been 'unlawfully killed'.

Now the soft liberal side of me thinks that justice has been done - this guy was carrying a plastic bag and the armed officers made a bad judgement call and were too eager to fire.

But that's not the story, I think. To the best of my knowledge (I'm basing this on people I've spoken to in Civi and Military police), these guys don't have any kind of gung-ho attitude as might be seen in hollywood films. I've even seen CCTV footage of an armed officer, on being confronted by a scrote waving a gun, choose NOT to open fire, but to take the kid down with a rugby tackle. Only later on was it determined that the gun pointed at the office was a replica - he did not know that when he made that decision.

So should they have been suspended? Or supported for making a difficult choice in a difficult situation? Can you honestly say that in the same position, with the information you had at your disposal, and looking someone who looked as though they were armed, you would have resisted the urge to protect yourself, your colleague and however many other people were around? Would the same verdict have been reached if it HAD been a shotgun in the bag? I doubt it, somehow.

[AirHog]

Originally Posted by aclivity

So should they have been suspended? Or supported for making a difficult choice in a difficult situation? Can you honestly say that in the same position, with the information you had at your disposal, and looking someone who looked as though they were armed, you would have resisted the urge to protect yourself, your colleague and however many other people were around? Would the same verdict have been reached if it HAD been a shotgun in the bag? I doubt it, somehow.

This, for me at least, is on the same level as the soldier who was/is being prosecuted for 'murder' of a man trying to smuggle anti-aircraft ammunition in Iraq. We ask these officers and men to do a job that most of us would not want to do, we put them in situations most of us would not want to find ourselves in and then the powers that be and their liberal flunkies decide it is in someone's best interests if these 'criminals' are brought to justice.

Let these guys do their job is what I say. Do not send soldiers trained to kill on peacekeeping missions, do not prosecute police officers who voulantarily carry firearms for making a genuine mistake when asked to make an instantaneous decision on theirs and others safety.

From memory, when the guy carrying the hair dryer was shot 30-something times (6-shot standard issue police pistols - someone must have reloaded!) by New York police officers, Mayor Giuliani made a statement along the lines of "you can either have zero tolerance, in which case some mistakes are inevitable, or we can carry on as we are with soaring crime rates".

I wish some of our politicians had 1/10 the backbone that man has.
</rant>

Regards

Mark

[Andy the Coastie]

ARM all the police & shoot any fcuker that looks like he is using a firearm with intent.

One thing that amases me is that when you see a tactical firearms unit from the police , they both aim exactly the same weapon at the target.....

WHY ?

Why doesn't one of them have sense and fire a rubber bullet at the target to bring them down........ cracking fun

Mind you , it wouldn't be the same here , not finding the used rubber dildo's .

[dlegros]

I think it's simple.

A group of men, all dressed in black, carrying SMGs point them at you, tell you to drop the bag and lay face down on the floor - it's not rocket science is it?

If you are told to comply with instruction or be shot, and you don't comply - then tough, you were given the option.

I agree wholeheratedly with Mark above, I work at the HQ hospital for the Royal Centres for Defence Medicine and work with the military daily (many of whom are due to rotate back out to Iraq soon).

Dom

The problem with all these thoughts is that no-one that isn't at an incident will really know what happened.
The story certainly being told is that they guy was challenged from behind and didn't have a clue what was going on.
Now if this is the real story (and not having been there I don't know for sure)
then if it was me walking along the street minding my own business (and had he not been to the pub?) and somebody from out the blue shouted armed police stand still or whatever, I would turn round to see what was going on, automatic reaction especially if you aren't aware or expecting it to have anything to do with you.
Now if the story is true (and remember I have only what has been put on telly) that they had the guy covered from behind then hard questions need to be asked about how the guy got shot in the head, not in the chest. The guy was just walking down the street minding his own business

[Steve L.]

Originally Posted by RubberBoy

.
Now if the story is true (and remember I have only what has been put on telly) that they had the guy covered from behind then hard questions need to be asked about how the guy got shot in the head, not in the chest. The guy was just walking down the street minding his own business

And thats the problem. We don`t even know 1% of what happened during this incident, only what the press choose to tell us. Reconstructiing a shooting is a lengthy and complex issue. I`ve read plenty of `Monday morning quarterbacking` on this issue from armchair tacticians who think an MP5 is something you record music on, and a Glock something you play music on with a couple of sticks.

This happened four years ago. I see a lot of ass covering from prospective future chief constables within the Met and maybe a little pressure from the bespectacled, thin men with short haircuts and dark suits at the Home Office. I don`t think the officers who downed weapons were protesting about the coroners court verdict, it`s more to do with the suspensions. After four years, one wonders what suspending officers in this manner will achieve.

Steve

[The Bouncer]

have to agree with the arm all the police atitude ... their job is ahrd enough as it is without having to deal with the political side of it

I can see the point of the officer refusing to carry arms ... if they make an error of judgement they are out of a job with the way the latest ruling has gone

[Mr T.]

Amen to that Steve L.

Latest number of SO19 guys who've 'downed tools' is 135 - and expected to grow. Sir John Stephens, the Police Commissioner, has stepped in to handle the dispute personally.

Can't say I blame them for taking the action they are doing either. The officers involved in the incident were doing precisely what they were trained and paid to do.

There are very clear and specific procedures in these types of events, and nothing I've heard or read leads me to believe that these were not followed.

"You! Armed Police! Put down the weapon and lie face down with your hands on your head and lie still!"

This guy (the dead chap) did not, after repeatedly being asked to do so, follow these orders. I'm bound to say, too, that he probably made some form of gesture with 'the table leg' towards the police. Tap-tap. How were they to know there wasn't a sawn-off shotgun in the bag and not a table leg? They weren't.

Whilst it might be unfortunate that this guy got killed, I currently have no problems with the way the coppers reacted to the perceived threat on the ground. And suspending them four years after the event is simply rediculous.

[Adrian Kelland]

I tend to agree with you all, but neither must we ignore the possibility that the unfortunate police involved made some kind of mistake in following their procedures.

We have bugger all information to make fair judgements here.

If you were carring a table leg in a plastic bag having left a pub (a couple of drinks involved perhaps?) and someone shouts at you 'put the gun down' (or whatever), how would YOU respond. Afterall YOU know that YOU are not carrying a gun, so they must mean someone else. You turn around suddenly....

[markg]

if you point anything remotely gun looking at the police you deserve to be shot. i'm not a great fan of the police(goes back to my teens) but they have a bloody hard enough job to do without having to answer to all the hand wringing namby pamby liberals.