View Full Version : Police Shooting
Kaishowing
03-Nov-06, 16:37
Following the recent shooting and subsequent death of a man alleged to be taking part of an armed robbery in Kent, it's been released that the police officer who fired was one who also had beeen involved with the Jean Charles de Menezes shooting in the Stockwell Tube station in 2005.
My questions are, should officers who have been already involved with a fatal shooting be allowed to still be able to carry firearms?
Should the name of the officer in question be made public? (a question that was raised during a debate that was on Radio 2 today)
Is firearms training adequate in the UK?
Should any inquiry (aside from the IPCC) following a shooting be totaly independant, or should it be investigated by officers (past and present) who have also been in similar situations?
j4bberw0ck
03-Nov-06, 16:44
Following the recent shooting and subsequent death of a man alleged to be taking part of an armed robbery in Kent, it's been released that the police officer who fired was one who also had beeen involved with the Jean Charles de Menezes shooting in the Stockwell Tube station in 2005.
Yes, I heard that and I'm afraid I concluded that it must have been a slow news week........... it's a non-story, IMHO.
My questions are, should officers who have been already involved with a fatal shooting be allowed to still be able to carry firearms?
Yes. Because they're arguably better qualified than anyone else to determine the right action for the circumstances.
Should the name of the officer in question be made public? (a question that was raised during a debate that was on Radio 2 today)
No, absolutely not. He'd be hounded by the media and potentially put in a threatening situation. Think of his family, at least.
Is firearms training adequate in the UK?
No idea. Nor, I suspect, has anyone else except those involved (both shooting and non-shooting).
Should any inquiry (aside from the IPCC) following a shooting be totaly independant, or should it be investigated by officers (past and present) who have also been in similar situations?
I think officers involved in similar situations should most definitely be involved. It's all too easy for the hand-wringing apologists to get air time anyway.
Kaishowing
03-Nov-06, 16:49
Yes. Because they're arguably better qualified than anyone else to determine the right action for the circumstances.
Just to play Devil's Advocate.....Don't you think that perhaps the stress of being in a previous shooting, or a 'shots fired' situation may have a bearing on how they would act in a similar situation?
Surely it's a learned responce....once you have a gun fired at you, you're far less likely to give someone the chance to squeeze the trigger again!
All professionals have the experience of the stress of the "first time experience." For most of us it makes us more proficient the next time. And for a few it perhaps helps them find another career where that particular stress will not come into play. I am sure that the officer involved was put through a rigorous psychological testing after the incident and declared fit to be in active service. I agree with j4bberwOck that the first incident prepared him to make a more informed judgement when faced with a similar situation.
My questions are, should officers who have been already involved with a fatal shooting be allowed to still be able to carry firearms?
Bear in mind that the number of armed officers in the UK is not infinite. These officers are deployed as teams and as such they're responding to all incidents that require armed response so there is going to be occasions where an officer might be exposed to a situation where they have to fire again.
Bit like a soldier in battle - he is going to hit more than one enemy target. Or do you want experienced officers handing in their firearms certificate after they use their weapon? There would soon be no-one left to do the job....
Should the name of the officer in question be made public? (a question that was raised during a debate that was on Radio 2 today)Is firearms training adequate in the UK?
Why should it? Only if the officer is charged with an offence should his details be made public. Just as officers on certain armed duties have their identities concealed if they appear on the TV this officer might have to have his identity protected.
Police firearms training in the UK is of the highest standards. There was one fatal shooting in the wholeof the UK last year - two this year. These are not trigger happy cowboys...
Should any inquiry (aside from the IPCC) following a shooting be totaly independant, or should it be investigated by officers (past and present) who have also been in similar situations?
The IPCC is independent - if independent from the Police is what you mean? And I believe internal investigations are carried out following police use of firearms anyway.
Just to play Devil's Advocate.....Don't you think that perhaps the stress of being in a previous shooting, or a 'shots fired' situation may have a bearing on how they would act in a similar situation?
Surely it's a learned responce....once you have a gun fired at you, you're far less likely to give someone the chance to squeeze the trigger again!Not only was the Armed Robber given a chance to pull the trigger but did indeed pull the trigger of the sawn off shotgun he was carrying.
What should the police have done? waited to see if he decided to fire again?
Perhaps they should have waited to see if he had fired all his cartridges and given him the chance to reload.
Fortunately none of the police, who are there to protect law abiding people from such criminal behaviour, shot. Perhaps they should have waited to make sure he killed somebody before shooting him?
Such decisions have to be made in parts of a second in order to save innocent people. I'm sure the officer concerned would have loved to have been sat comfortably infront of a computer engaging in the "Shudders".
There are always the "Armchair Experts" who know full well that in such situations, "They shudder done this or they shudder done that!"
I will mention no names, but by all accounts the Armed Robber was very an associate of a certain person who killed an undercover police officer because he claimed he did it out of "fear". He later murdered an innocent motorist for daring to be upset by the fact that he had nearly forced him off a Motorway, a murder for which he was later convicted.
Such people do not worry about the niceties of the "Rules", if you get in their way they will kill you without a thought whoever you are.
I would have thought that having been put in the position whereby you had killed an innocent man you would certainly not be inclined to become a Trigger Happy Rambo.
Anybody in such a position would know full well that the vultures would gather to pick over the scraps left after you had been torn to pieces.
And, guess what! The Vultures have already gathered and are searching for scraps already.
David from Stockport
03-Nov-06, 17:36
Yep i support the officer 100% - the guy will be no great loss and if it serves as a warning to others great!
Kaishowing
03-Nov-06, 18:02
Okay..there's been a few comments now, so I'll post what I think....
Like others have said, involvement in previous shooting incidents shouldn't prohibit anyone from carrying on in the Firearms Unit, as long as they pass the highly stringent psychological asessments all officers are forced to go through following any shooting.
Let's not forget that all the members of the Unit are volunteers.
My Uncle (recently retired from Special Branch) knows the man in question, and apparently is an officer with a repuation of the highest integrity.
These are the people who, if deemed as able to handle the stress, are exactly the people we want to be carrying guns if it must be done.
As far as I know, the training for the CO-19 unit is as close to reality as it possibly can be, and the attempt to try to induce same stress levels they might find in potential firearms situations, has been incorporated by other forces worldwide, and is now commonplace.
Given the rise in gun crime in the UK, the number of police related shootings has remained low in comparrison which in my mind speaks highly of the training in general.
As was pointed out here (and on the radio earlier) disclosure of the officers' name would finish his career in the Police Force, and quite probably put his and his family's lives at risk.
I agree there should be a free press in the UK, but limits must be set, and this crosses the line by a long way.
As for the inquiry, I believe the IPCC has a pool of sitting board members with various spheres of experience that are able to look at pretty much any situation from an informed point of view.
The worst thaing that could happen would be for any inquiry to go parliamentary, even at a junior level. Government investigations of this type normally end up as a sham, and finish only having cost a huge sum of money, for diluted results and would probably only just recommend that it should remain a Police matter.
Yes, I heard that and I'm afraid I concluded that it must have been a slow news week........... it's a non-story, IMHO.
[/COLOR]
Yes. Because they're arguably better qualified than anyone else to determine the right action for the circumstances.
No, absolutely not. He'd be hounded by the media and potentially put in a threatening situation. Think of his family, at least.
No idea. Nor, I suspect, has anyone else except those involved (both shooting and non-shooting).
[COLOR=darkslateblue]
I think officers involved in similar situations should most definitely be involved. It's all too easy for the hand-wringing apologists to get air time anyway.
I totally agree with these answers, and do not see how anybody who has not been in a similar situation can say otherwise.
I am grateful to the Police for being there, and because It is not me that has to make those decisions.
Following the recent shooting and subsequent death of a man alleged to be taking part of an armed robbery in Kent, it's been released that the police officer who fired was one who also had beeen involved with the Jean Charles de Menezes shooting in the Stockwell Tube station in 2005.
My questions are, should officers who have been already involved with a fatal shooting be allowed to still be able to carry firearms?
Should the name of the officer in question be made public? (a question that was raised during a debate that was on Radio 2 today)
Is firearms training adequate in the UK?
Should any inquiry (aside from the IPCC) following a shooting be totaly independant, or should it be investigated by officers (past and present) who have also been in similar situations?
The reports that are coming out indicate that this was a legitimate killing.
This shows that the officer was fit to return to work which is 16 months since the other killing. It also shows that the training is adequate as the bloke was killed.
That should be end of discussion.
Oh, it is a bit rich of the menendez family (who have mine and the nation's sympathy) to join the condemnation of the officer when they come from a country where the police have a reputation of shooting first and asking questions later.
Rheghead, couldn't agree more. I've lost the details but I once did some checking when the Brazilian Government got themselves involved.
I found some sites giving information about the extermination, there is no other word for it, of the street kids in that country.
The figures for every single city are in the hundreds. Investigations? What investigations. You'd get more fuss if somebody shot a rat on the street here.
I have my own suspicions about about who does many of the killings, but that's only my suspicious mind.
QUADBIKER
03-Nov-06, 20:48
Not only was the Armed Robber given a chance to pull the trigger but did indeed pull the trigger of the sawn off shotgun he was carrying.
What should the police have done? waited to see if he decided to fire again?
Perhaps they should have waited to see if he had fired all his cartridges and given him the chance to reload.
Fortunately none of the police, who are there to protect law abiding people from such criminal behaviour, shot. Perhaps they should have waited to make sure he killed somebody before shooting him?
Such decisions have to be made in parts of a second in order to save innocent people. I'm sure the officer concerned would have loved to have been sat comfortably infront of a computer engaging in the "Shudders".
There are always the "Armchair Experts" who know full well that in such situations, "They shudder done this or they shudder done that!"
I will mention no names, but by all accounts the Armed Robber was very an associate of a certain person who killed an undercover police officer because he claimed he did it out of "fear". He later murdered an innocent motorist for daring to be upset by the fact that he had nearly forced him off a Motorway, a murder for which he was later convicted.
Such people do not worry about the niceties of the "Rules", if you get in their way they will kill you without a thought whoever you are.
I would have thought that having been put in the position whereby you had killed an innocent man you would certainly not be inclined to become a Trigger Happy Rambo.
Anybody in such a position would know full well that the vultures would gather to pick over the scraps left after you had been torn to pieces.
And, guess what! The Vultures have already gathered and are searching for scraps already.
Jaws you are spot on, what people want to bear in mind this man went out armed with a sawn off shotgun to commit an armed robbery, is he not making a statement that i intend to use this gun to get my way. How would people feel if it was their relations that got shot by a lunatic. Give the cop a medal!
Kaishowing
03-Nov-06, 20:53
Oh, it is a bit rich of the menendez family (who have mine and the nation's sympathy) to join the condemnation of the officer when they come from a country where the police have a reputation of shooting first and asking questions later.
I was wondering if anyone would mention this. The same point was raised on the radio as well.
As for asking questions later....even then I think that's fairly rare.
Official statistics show that between 1999 and 2004, police in the states of Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo killed 9,889 people in situations registered officially as “resistance followed by death”.
As a result of this, 558 police officers in Rio de Janeiro were punished. 14 of them were expelled from the police.
Just looking at the figures there tells a story in itself.
(Source material Amnesty International. http://web.amnesty.org )
My questions are, should officers who have been already involved with a fatal shooting be allowed to still be able to carry firearms?
Is firearms training adequate in the UK?
?
Of course he should he was a Firearms Officer anyway, what do Firearms Officers do, shout Bang Bang at the crims?
If this happened in say Northern Ireland where all police officers carry firearms, then there would be no hoohaw as there is here.
Why shouldnt he back at work, the guy had to make a decision and i believe that he made the right one, if the guy with the sawn off shotgun had shot and killed a member of the public the policeman would of been accused of not doing his job properly, as with the first incident he had to make a decision then how was he or the other officers with him to know that the guy had a table leg in the bag and the fact that he ran didnt do him any favours either.
The cops always seem to come under fire ( excuse the pun ) no matter what they do, its time the public gave them a break[disgust]
My questions are, should officers who have been already involved with a fatal shooting be allowed to still be able to carry firearms?
I would say so - he/she is obviously a fine shot and good at keeping us all safe.
pultneytooner
03-Nov-06, 22:49
Following the recent shooting and subsequent death of a man alleged to be taking part of an armed robbery in Kent, it's been released that the police officer who fired was one who also had beeen involved with the Jean Charles de Menezes shooting in the Stockwell Tube station in 2005.
My questions are, should officers who have been already involved with a fatal shooting be allowed to still be able to carry firearms?
Should the name of the officer in question be made public? (a question that was raised during a debate that was on Radio 2 today)
Is firearms training adequate in the UK?
Should any inquiry (aside from the IPCC) following a shooting be totaly independant, or should it be investigated by officers (past and present) who have also been in similar situations?
If the officer is pending an enquiry into the shooting of menendez then he shouldn't have been involved in this case but if he is not then I see no problem there.
These guys shouldn't be name as it could possibly put the lives of their families in danger.
SO19 are trained by the sas so I would imagine they are trained to the highest degree
The Crown Prosecution Service, presumably after consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions, have determined that the Officers involved in the Stockwell Shooting had not committed a Criminal Offence.
As far as I am aware, from media reports of course, any current enquiries are to establish how the Officers at the scene came to be told that they were dealing with a Terrorist and a potential Suicide Bomber.
If that is the case, and neither the CPS or the Police Complaints Authority have made any comments to the contrary, then the Officers themselves are not under investigation and as such there is no reason that they should not return to work.
I'm sure that if there was any question that they were still under any sort of investigation then the PCA would be very vocal about their return to duty.
That is one of the reasons they were created in the first place.
What crosses my mind is exactly how the Media seem to have become aware of who was involved before they were aware of exactly what had occurred at the scene.
celtic 302
03-Nov-06, 23:39
Yep i support the officer 100% - the guy will be no great loss and if it serves as a warning to others great!
Your idea that a man being shot to put people of doing it again is ridiculous. In 1918, when the German navy was mutinising (sorry about the grammar), the Kaiser shot 8 sailors to get the other men to do his dirty work. did they do it? no. Death penalty in america. deterant. did it work? no
If these people were totaly scared of dying, they'd be behind a desk all day, not shotting at policemen.
And the no great loss thing. My view on capital punishment is the same here, killing to set an example to others, makes u as bad as the original murderer. Killing a man in cold-blood is murder, no matter what the excuses, or what the greater good is.
The ends dont justify the means...
celtic 302, I've never known a re-offender.
It's a pity that people who are willing to go out to commit crime with the intention of killing anybody who gets in their way do not have the same moral outlook and sense of justice about theiir victims.
celtic 302
04-Nov-06, 00:27
killing murderers isnt justice, its murder.
and wat do u mean, uve never known a re-offender?
pultneytooner
04-Nov-06, 00:31
killing murderers isnt justice, its murder.
and wat do u mean, uve never known a re-offender?
I thought that would be pretty obvious, someone who is shot dead is not going to re-offend.
This guy has a sawn-off shotgun, he's fired it, you are an armed response unit, What do you do?
celtic 302
04-Nov-06, 00:35
u fire back if its the only option. listen carefully; I AM NOT SAYING DONT SHOT, IM SAYING KILLING SOMEONE IS NOT JUSTICE. IF THERE IS A WAY TO AVOID DEATH, ID BE FIRST ON THE SIGN ON LIST, BUT SOMETIMES THERE ISNT, AND I RESPECT THAT. HOWEVER SAYING SHOT THEM JUST BECAUSE THEYVE GOT A GUN, NOT ALWAYS FIRED, IS WRONG. sorry!
celtic 302
04-Nov-06, 00:37
ps, im not being angry at anyone. i just get annoyed when people deliberatly misinterprate my point... good night.
pps. u wanna say something to me about my views, pm me.
pultneytooner
04-Nov-06, 00:41
u fire back if its the only option. listen carefully; I AM NOT SAYING DONT SHOT, IM SAYING KILLING SOMEONE IS NOT JUSTICE. IF THERE IS A WAY TO AVOID DEATH, ID BE FIRST ON THE SIGN ON LIST, BUT SOMETIMES THERE ISNT, AND I RESPECT THAT. HOWEVER SAYING SHOT THEM JUST BECAUSE THEYVE GOT A GUN, NOT ALWAYS FIRED, IS WRONG. sorry!
Hey, I totaly agree with you, if they don't fire then there is a chance of negotiation.
If they are armed and have a hostage then shoot them at the first safe, (for the hostage) opportunity.
In this case the guy fired hi shotgun so therefore signed his own death warrant.
killing murderers isnt justice, its murder.
and wat do u mean, uve never known a re-offender?My apologies for engagig in a spot of Black Humour.
Did I suggest killing murderers? I mealy pointed out that it was a pity that those who go out with the intention - oh, read it that part again and tell me where I advocate executing anybody.
serves the guy rite,well done to the copper for doing it
Naefearjustbeer
04-Nov-06, 02:19
serves the guy rite,well done to the copper for doing it
You are right the police man was part of an armed response unit. He did his job end of story. The day you pull a gun out and break the law is the day you have given up your rights to the protection of the law. The man should be given a medal for doing his job. Maybe if more police men were able (allowed) to do the job then some of these criminals may think twice before they decide to go out on a crime spree.
killing murderers isnt justice, its murder.
That is your opinion, which is not shared by the majority of this country and God.:roll: I take it that you think the policeman murdered the robber an'all?
Kaishowing
04-Nov-06, 11:55
killing murderers isnt justice, its murder.
Are you talking about capital punishment?? If so that's another matter entirely.
In a situation where a suspect with a gun has already opened fire the responding armed officers cannot take a chance with an individual who's already shown their willingness to squeeze the trigger.
As long as there is no direct threat to life, the officers will give the suspect every chance to surrender without shots being fired......but as soon as the gun is pointing in a threatening direction, that's where the individual officers' judgement of the situation comes in.
celtic 302
04-Nov-06, 13:07
That is your opinion, which is not shared by the majority of this country and God.:roll: I take it that you think the policeman murdered the robber an'all?
I dont think the policeman murdered him, im just trying to say, that when a couple of posts ago somebody said good on him, thats wrong. People who think killing him was a good thing, even though it was the right thing, are idiots. full stop. Do you think the policeman thought it was the good thing, or good fun, to shot somebody, and kill somebody?
It's not the first time I have been called an idiot and it will not the last. One thing I do know is that whilst I may be an idiot, I am in good company and welcome the fact.
I'm fairly certain that the Officer concerned didn't think he was doing a bad thing by making sure that the Armed Robber didn't kill either him or somebody else.
If somebody was pointing a sawn-off shotgun at me and somebody else killed him and made sure my life was safe I would think that person was wonderful.
I certainly would not be showing any concern for the thug with the shot-gun.
I know what my opinion would have been had the Officer done absolutely nothing and the thug had murdered one of my relatives.
I certainly would not believe the Officer was kind, thoughtful and considerate of human life.
I would believe him to have totally failed in his duty to protect the public in general so that they can live in safety
I certainly do not think that Rheghead or anybody else on this thread has suggested that the actions under discussion are in any way "fun".
To try and create the impression that those who disagree with you consider killing somebody to be "Fun" is obviously an idea created in your mind, not thier's.
I consider the concept that, "Those who do not agree with me are idiots!", to be the sign of a very closed and rigid mind.
I dont think the policeman murdered him, im just trying to say, that when a couple of posts ago somebody said good on him, thats wrong. People who think killing him was a good thing, even though it was the right thing, are idiots. full stop. Do you think the policeman thought it was the good thing, or good fun, to shot somebody, and kill somebody?
I should think the policeman was mortified later - he/she would not have seen anything entertaining in the action - it was what they were trained to do. I someone assualted your daughter and you took aggressive action yourself to beat up that person do you not think that is justified? I know that this is slightly off the track, but when it comes to dealing with armed murderers we, the public, are not equipped or trained to deal with it. So, we have to trust in those that are placed in the unenviable position to take action on our behalf.
"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
George Orwell
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.