four-wheel-drive Posted February 16, 2017 Report Share Posted February 16, 2017 The problem is most people in the UK have no idea what it is like to even hold a hand gun let alone shoot it they watch TV and Films and they see the good guys shooting the bad guys gun out of his hand or shoot him in the arm so that he drops his gun real life is not like that it only takes a spit second for the bad guy to pull his gun out and shoot you and not wanting to end up dead or in hospital only a fool would not shoot them if they moved the moto to this is if you do not want to end up being shot do not do bad things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted February 16, 2017 Report Share Posted February 16, 2017 (edited) I am a big gun and like all shooting sports but if I was a British police man/woman I do not think that I would want to have a gun if you did actually use it and shot someone from what I have seen of it you will be suspended and they will do a long enquiry and if you could not prove it 100% that they other person was going to kill you then you could end up going to prison yourself now that takes guts to do a job like that. And if they get it wrong they should end up in prison would anyone want the police not to be accountable for their actions. ? As for thinking twice they should definitely think twice before shooting someone. As i have said before i see the unarmed officers as the brave ones, how many armed officers have being killed on duty, compared to unarmed officers. Being an armed police officer in most of the UK is safer than a lot of occupations. Britain's ten most dangerous professions 1. Window Cleaner 6. Police officer 2. Soldier 7. Roofer 3. Fireman 8. Scaffolder 4. Offshore fisherman 9. Tree surgeon 5. Pilot 10. Circus performer . Edited February 16, 2017 by ordnance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon1 Posted February 16, 2017 Report Share Posted February 16, 2017 As for thinking twice they should definitely think twice before shooting someone. what if you don't have time to think twice? Simple rule in my eyes - never startle/frighten/move quickly/etc a copper with a gun drawn. I'm not saying you deserve to get shot, but you should expect it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted February 16, 2017 Report Share Posted February 16, 2017 (edited) what if you don't have time to think twice? If it was justified then it wont be a problem, if it was not then they should be charged. The are made well aware during training of the possible coincidences if they get it wrong, if they have an issue with being accountable for their actions don't volunteer. Individual responsibility and accountabilityEach AFO is individually responsible and accountable for their decisions and actions, nothing can absolve them from such responsibility and accountability. This includes decisions to refrain from using force as well as any decisive action taken, including the use of force, the use of a firearm and the use of a less lethal weapon. AFOs are answerable, ultimately, to the law in the courts. They must be in a position to justify their decisions and actions based on their honestly held belief as to the circumstances that existed at the time, and their professional and legal responsibilities. Edited February 16, 2017 by ordnance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted February 16, 2017 Report Share Posted February 16, 2017 If it was justified then it wont be a problem, if it was not then they should be charged. The are made well aware during training of the possible coincidences if they get it wrong, if they have an issue with being accountable for their actions don't volunteer. That's the massive dilemma isn't it? I shoot with about ten met police coppers on a weekly basis at my club in NW London. Despite being keen and competitive shooters, none of them are firearms officers, none of them want to be. They actually have a very low opinion of the 'squads'. They regard it as a career killer to join one. They call them Rambo cops and regard it as the last resting place of failed cops who couldn't hack it on the streets. Its not a good perception Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ph5172 Posted February 17, 2017 Report Share Posted February 17, 2017 If it was justified then it wont be a problem, if it was not then they should be charged. The are made well aware during training of the possible coincidences if they get it wrong, if they have an issue with being accountable for their actions don't volunteer. Yes... and if it goes to trial, and a jury of randomly selected members of the public decide that there is no case to answer that should be the end of it....... Just as a bit of Home Office info in 2011/12 there were just over 12000 Authorised Firearms Operations resulting in 5 Discharges and 2 Fatalities Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKPoacher Posted February 17, 2017 Report Share Posted February 17, 2017 That's the massive dilemma isn't it? I shoot with about ten met police coppers on a weekly basis at my club in NW London. Despite being keen and competitive shooters, none of them are firearms officers, none of them want to be. They actually have a very low opinion of the 'squads'. They regard it as a career killer to join one. They call them Rambo cops and regard it as the last resting place of failed cops who couldn't hack it on the streets. Its not a good perception Having worked alongside them in operational situations I don't agree that this is the case nationwide. Maybe a local issue. There are always some who you wonder how they managed to pass the strict criteria, same in any specialised department, but the majority were sound and nothing like the Rambo image your friend's paint. I wouldn't have their job. Apart from the huge burden of responsibility there are major downsides. The AFOs get called to many situations that should never have been graded firearms incidents. The Call Handlers and supervisors opting for the safe route and passing the burden of responsibility to the AFOs. Fireworks, people perceived to be acting suspiciously, laughable threats to kill for example. They deal with a lot of chaff amongst the real calls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferguson_tom Posted February 17, 2017 Report Share Posted February 17, 2017 And if they get it wrong they should end up in prison would anyone want the police not to be accountable for their actions. I think the front line officers are very dependent on the intelligence they get, if they make a decision and shoot someone based on the intelligence received and it turns out to be an innocent person whos fault is it then? If i remember correctly from the TV program about the Brazilian that got shot on the tube, the police officers doing the shooting consider it an operational success for their part of it. They did their job as they were meant to however the intelligence they were fed was wrong so should the bloke who pulled the trigger be prosecuted for doing his job? My dad was a police officer for years and he says you couldnt pay him enough to be armed, the armed police i do know are all pretty normal decent blokes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted February 17, 2017 Report Share Posted February 17, 2017 If i remember correctly from the TV program about the Brazilian that got shot on the tube, the police officers doing the shooting consider it an operational success for their part of it. They did their job as they were meant to however the intelligence they were fed was wrong so should the bloke who pulled the trigger be prosecuted for doing his job. It boils down to unlike in N/I and most European countries they doint have to be armed they volunteer if they have an issue with their responsibilities, and possible coincidences of their actions doint volunteer. But if they accept all that doint moan if they are investigated after a shooting they signed up for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferguson_tom Posted February 17, 2017 Report Share Posted February 17, 2017 It boils down to unlike in N/I and most European countries they doint have to be armed they volunteer if they have an issue with their responsibilities, and possible coincidences of their actions doint volunteer. But if they accept all that doint moan if they are investigated after a shooting they signed up for it. No one is forced to become a police officer what ever country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted February 17, 2017 Report Share Posted February 17, 2017 (edited) No one is forced to become a police officer what ever country. True. I bet if they were police in this part of the UK they would change their view on carrying a firearm. Edited February 17, 2017 by ordnance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 I think a minority on this thread should become armed officers, they seem to have all the answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalahari Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 The burden of proof is the same for all crimes. So if a policeman shoots someone because he "thinks" they are armed, the level of proof is exactly the same as you doing 40 in a 30 limit because you "thought" it was a 40 limit. See how far your defence gets. The police should be treated in exactly the same way. David. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKPoacher Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 The burden of proof is the same for all crimes. So if a policeman shoots someone because he "thinks" they are armed, the level of proof is exactly the same as you doing 40 in a 30 limit because you "thought" it was a 40 limit. See how far your defence gets. The police should be treated in exactly the same way. David. Absolute rubbish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 Absolute rubbish. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalahari Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 The opinion I had on burden of proof was a QC who specialised in the criminal bench, so I suppose he knew nothing. Always nice to know the experts know nothing. David. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKPoacher Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 The opinion I had on burden of proof was a QC who specialised in the criminal bench, so I suppose he knew nothing. Always nice to know the experts know nothing. David. He might know a thing or two. But your post is total ballcocks. Perhaps you don't understand as much as you think that you do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 The opinion I had on burden of proof was a QC who specialised in the criminal bench, so I suppose he knew nothing. Always nice to know the experts know nothing. David. Well it sounds like this QC needs to do a bit more studying, explain how the cops who shot the Brazilian didn't get locked up then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmytree Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 The burden of proof is the same for all crimes. So if a policeman shoots someone because he "thinks" they are armed, the level of proof is exactly the same as you doing 40 in a 30 limit because you "thought" it was a 40 limit. See how far your defence gets. The police should be treated in exactly the same way. David. If a policeman shoots someone who he "thinks" is armed then he's doing his job right. If that person then turns out to be a criminal, so much the better. Terrorist? Better still. If you get burgled are you going to call the police or some smart **** lawyer who will argue about 10 mph? Nobody is perfect but the police are the front line defence in this country and deserve support, not vilification. If a copper shot someone and stopped a terrorist attack that saved a member of your family would you moan about it? Simple solution. comply with whatever the police ask of you. If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 If a policeman shoots someone who he "thinks" is armed then he's doing his job right. If that person then turns out to be a criminal, so much the better. Terrorist? Better still. If you get burgled are you going to call the police or some smart **** lawyer who will argue about 10 mph? Nobody is perfect but the police are the front line defence in this country and deserve support, not vilification. If a copper shot someone and stopped a terrorist attack that saved a member of your family would you moan about it? Simple solution. comply with whatever the police ask of you. If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. What if it was a innocent member of your family the police shot because they thought they were armed, would you think the same. ? If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. Tell that to the family of Charles da Silva e de Menezes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalahari Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 Well it sounds like this QC needs to do a bit more studying, explain how the cops who shot the Brazilian didn't get locked up then? Well, the fix was in, the jury were told at the beginning of the inquest that they could not bring in a verdict of unlawful killing. That being the case they were away scot free. David. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKPoacher Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 What if it was a innocent member of your family the police shot because they thought they were armed, would you think the same. ? Tell that to the family of Charles da Silva e de Menezes. Doesn't matter a jot what the family think as regards a point of law. You should know that. The second example is flawed in that he wasn't exactly complying with normal behaviour in a situation where people's lives were under threat. Well, the fix was in, the jury were told at the beginning of the inquest that they could not bring in a verdict of unlawful killing. That being the case they were away scot free. David. Perhaps if you posted the full details of the incident you are obviously referring to someone could point out your misunderstanding of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 (edited) The second example is flawed in that he wasn't exactly complying with normal behaviour in a situation where people's lives were under threat. Siting on a train not normal behaviour. Doesn't matter a jot what the family think as regards a point of law. You should know that. It matters when someone thinks its OK for the police to shoot a stranger, the question was would they think the same if it was a member of their family. Not what the law says. Edited February 18, 2017 by ordnance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ph5172 Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 Siting on a train not normal behaviour. I thought he had come from the house of a known terrorist? But by all accounts he should have been stopped (as per the plan) well before boarding a packed bus then heading towards a full train - i am probably sure the initial stop plan wasn't meant to include a few rounds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKPoacher Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 Siting on a train not normal behaviour. You do try and always bring a negative aspect to any UK police shooting don't you? It gets rather tiresome especially as you keep hinting that you are 'in the business' yourself. If you were 'in the business' and were also aware of the situation, the threat and the actions of the suspect you might see things differently. The actions of de Menezes might have been proven to be innocent in hindsight. But put yourself in the position of the officers, the threat, the information received and ask yourself honestly if you believed that you had the right man in your sight and he got off a bus to make a quick phone call before re-boarding, started running suddenly to board a train as if to shake off anyone following him, wouldn't you be suspicious? I would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts