al4x Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 Read how over 100 armed police mutinied over the coroners verdict of unlawful killing of Harry Stanley. Having taken an oath to execute their duties without fear or favour they then mutiny and threaten to hand in their arms in support of their two colleagues responsible for the unlawful killing of Harry Stanley. "02 Nov 2004: More than 100 Scotland Yard firearms officers threatened to down their weapons in protest at the suspension of their two colleagues over the death of Mr Stanley. Scotland Yard Commissioner Sir John Stevens personally took over negotiations to avert a potentially devastating "strike" by armed police. " These rebels should have been sacked and forfeited their pensions for such disgraceful conduct. For those who suggest a backlash of blame had Jean Charles triggered a bomb on the tube. Imagine if their had been a major public safety incident while the rebels had been breaking their oath and been striking, in itself an illegal act. http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/the-long-fight-to-win-justice-for-harry-1-560996 you can't have it all ways we ask these people to do a job, those 100 were making the only stand they could in support of two colleagues who as part of their job were close to being prosecuted. We weren't there on the scene we don't know the decision making process involved, enquiries have years to make the decision two blokes had seconds to make, in that case if they shot him turning round frankly if he had what they were told was a shotgun how far would you like him to turn on you before you shot? There is a call to make arm police and sometimes that call will be wrong for whatever reason, when you have to account for your actions to the level they do the trigger doesn't get pulled unless you are certain in your mind. After the event you can't go back you don't get hours behind a keyboard to make the right decision on the complete facts you have to go on whats available. In the refusing to go out armed they weren't striking just not doing armed duties, in the other side of things in the military look what happens with friendly fire and incidents regarding goat herders etc there is a very definite element of defence of the people we send out to do a job. Gets entirely forgotten at home and the human factor is something that is always going to be there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muddy Funker Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 (edited) Read how over 100 armed police mutinied over the coroners verdict of unlawful killing of Harry Stanley. Having taken an oath to execute their duties without fear or favour they then mutiny and threaten to hand in their arms in support of their two colleagues responsible for the unlawful killing of Harry Stanley. "02 Nov 2004: More than 100 Scotland Yard firearms officers threatened to down their weapons in protest at the suspension of their two colleagues over the death of Mr Stanley. Scotland Yard Commissioner Sir John Stevens personally took over negotiations to avert a potentially devastating "strike" by armed police. " These rebels should have been sacked and forfeited their pensions for such disgraceful conduct. For those who suggest a backlash of blame had Jean Charles triggered a bomb on the tube. Imagine if their had been a major public safety incident while the rebels had been breaking their oath and been striking, in itself an illegal act. http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/the-long-fight-to-win-justice-for-harry-1-560996 You should run for commissioner as you seem to have all the answers on how to fix the police Edit: My opinion is that it's not a perfect world and some people in this thread forget that. Mistakes will happen it's as simple as that. If some of you think you can do better then do so. Edited June 20, 2012 by Muddy Funker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
storme37 Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 (edited) i imagine people would not be so keen to suggest shooting a guy on a tube point blank would be ok if it had been their son or brother or even themselfs and it turned out they were just catching a train. but i do think our police would be no worse than any other countries police if armed, there will always be pluses and minuses to it. it would be nice to see the bobby remain unarmed for as long as it is still possible and by that i mean while its still safe enough for him to patrol the streets with out a gun. Edited June 20, 2012 by storme37 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bicykillgaz Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 I'd be happy for the police to be armed purely because I wouldn't be happy to do there job unarmed, it's a joke that police are walking the streets with batons and expected to chase down suspects who could be armed with anything from a knife to a gun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bicykillgaz Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 i imagine people would not be so keen to suggest shooting a guy on a tube point blank would be ok if it had been their son or brother or even themselfs and it turned out they were just catching a train. but i do think our police would be no worse than any other countries police if armed, there will always be pluses and minuses to it. it would be nice to see the bobby remain unarmed for as long as it is still possible and by that i mean while its still safe enough for him to patrol the streets with out a gun. Wasn't he here illegally? If he'd gone home when his visa expired he wouldn't of been here, wouldn't of ran and wouldn't of been shot some call that karma. Imagine if they'd not reacted as they did and he had been a terrorist and another train had been blown up, people would moan the police should act more decisively and argue for the use of lethal force in similar situations. I'd rather have one innocent persons death on my mind for acting in good faith than 100 people's from sitting and doing nothing for fear of offending over pc over nannied do gooding human rights loving idiots who can't see the bigger picture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 Wasn't he here illegally? If he'd gone home when his visa expired he wouldn't of been here, wouldn't of ran and wouldn't of been shot some call that karma. Imagine if they'd not reacted as they did and he had been a terrorist and another train had been blown up, people would moan the police should act more decisively and argue for the use of lethal force in similar situations. I'd rather have one innocent persons death on my mind for acting in good faith than 100 people's from sitting and doing nothing for fear of offending over pc over nannied do gooding human rights loving idiots who can't see the bigger picture. So you think its ok for the police to shoot innocent people because they think someone has a bomb or gun. You might have a different opinion if it was someone belonging to you. Not wanting to see the police acting incompetently and shooting innocent members of the public doesn't make you a do gooder. PS. Not having a visa isn't a good reason to shoot someone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cannon Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 So you think its ok for the police to shoot innocent people because they think someone has a bomb or gun. You might have a different opinion if it was someone belonging to you. Not wanting to see the police acting incompetently and shooting innocent members of the public doesn't make you a do gooder. PS. Not having a visa isn't a good reason to shoot someone. Police forces and armies shoot innocent civilians all the time. Shoot first ask questions later seems to be the thing to do when it comes down to making a split second decision. A lot of the times the decision is wrong, but there are also times when the decision to shoot is correct. Either way you're going to get ridiculed by the public. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
storme37 Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 Wasn't he here illegally? If he'd gone home when his visa expired he wouldn't of been here, wouldn't of ran and wouldn't of been shot some call that karma. Imagine if they'd not reacted as they did and he had been a terrorist and another train had been blown up, people would moan the police should act more decisively and argue for the use of lethal force in similar situations. I'd rather have one innocent persons death on my mind for acting in good faith than 100 people's from sitting and doing nothing for fear of offending over pc over nannied do gooding human rights loving idiots who can't see the bigger picture. but he wasnt a terrorist was he, no innocent persons death is ok but i do understand mistakes do happen each case should be viewed as 1 case and not just condemn all the police because of 1 act. but there must be accountability when people are killed and the numbers should remain small. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 Police forces and armies shoot innocent civilians all the time. Shoot first ask questions later seems to be the thing to do when it comes down to making a split second decision. A lot of the times the decision is wrong, but there are also times when the decision to shoot is correct. Either way you're going to get ridiculed by the public. Yes and when they are wrong just like if a civilian shoot someone they should be prosecuted. Their seems to be a reluctance to prosecute armed police in the UK in case their colleges spit out the dummy and threaten to strike as they have in the past. I would not ridicule any police officer for a justified shooting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewluke Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 how do you guys and gals feel about our police being armed? i would like to see them given legs first and learn to use them,dont see any police around my way anymore :o Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
storme37 Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 in fairness there must be some allowance for mistakes in life threatening situations i would not expect a military man to hold fire if he thought his life was in danger or a police man but there must be a clear and present danger like a armed offender. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 (edited) The coroners court had decided that a crime had been committed. The 100 who threatened to hand in their authorisations acted to prevent their collegues facing due process. Not a very palatable sight, the police themselves demonstrating that they are above the law and untouchable. At the time London couldn't afford to lose 100 armed officers and they knew it. The investigation by Surrey Police was blocked and obstructed at every turn. Again, not a very palatable sight. The two were never exonerated in a court of law, they were let off which is an entirely different thing. They are still guilty and everyone knows it, they fouled up. Its not a good thing when the police themselves are seen to hold themselves above the law and holding a get out of jail free card. Edited June 20, 2012 by Vince Green Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greymaster Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 All AFO's are volunteers and carry out armed duties in the hope that should they ultimately do the job they are trained to do, they will get a fair crack of the whip in the investigation. What you are referring to is the suspension of two officers five years after the incident and a very badly handled repeat enquiry by another force. What their colleagues were actually considering handing in their Authorisations over was to quote their Fed Rep at the time " The officers are very concerned that the tactics they are trained in, as a consequence of the verdict, are now in doubt. " That and a lack of support and direction from Command as to how to deal with a similar scenario ( they buried their heads in the proverbial sand and said follow your training....... ) It wasn't a strike, it wasn't a mutiny and at the time I was in a similar situation and watched the whole thing develop with a great deal of interest. Oh, and they were later exonerated. But don't let the truth get in the way of a good story..... They were "exonerated" by a neighbouring police force which has also been under investigation for wrongdoing. Justice Leveson said that the two shooters had lied and had been dishonest. Surrey police subsequently accused the judge of effectively lying about their lying. A coroners jury determied unlawful killing. 100 armed police then mutinied. A new court case was hastily convened. The 102 officers then got the verdict they were after, i.e. a single judge overturned a jury's verdict and determined that the coroner made a mistake in not directing the jury to find in favour of the 2 shooters. The judge refused leave for the family to appeal. The 100 mutineers kept their weapons. The two shooters kept their jobs and pensions. Surprised? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanj Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 Why should it? Aside from the fact that Dr Scholl lives in a coutry where the Police are routinely armed, and can therefore speak from experience we may not have, he is just as much a member of PW as you are, and should be allowed his say without insinuations that his nationality makes his input unwelcome. Hmmm. Totally agree on his being just as much a member as I but beg to differ on the point of his input being unwelcome. I wouldnt choose the word unwelcome but would prefer irrelevant. You'd have to have a very good knowledge of the workings of a country and its psyche to offer a constructive comment on such an issue as arming its police. I wouldn't pro offer an opinion (other than in jest) on the USA or any other countrys issues or expect it to be taken seriously and thats what prompted mmy remark. If Dr Scholl is a relatively recently exiled english resident then I'd withdraw my comment, if not then I won't for the reasons previously mentioned. Hope this clarifies my remark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanj Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 you could argue his is the only valid argument here....Dr Scholl lives with what we are discussing, we are all surmising He LIVES in a country with ARMED police.and he made a very valid point about france and germany (in fact all of europe) having armed officers and less violent crime than the UK. While I have NO knowledge of violent crime rates in France, Germany or all of europe I'd be VERY surprised if they were lower than the UK. I'd be even more surprised if the US was lower. As ever I am willing to admit I am wrong but am naturally sceptical when it comes to statistics........... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanj Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 i would like to see them given legs first and learn to use them,dont see any police around my way anymore :o Totally agree, the lack of feet on the ground is some of the reason the public may feel let down by the police Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 Wasn't he here illegally? If he'd gone home when his visa expired he wouldn't of been here, wouldn't of ran and wouldn't of been shot some call that karma. Imagine if they'd not reacted as they did and he had been a terrorist and another train had been blown up, people would moan the police should act more decisively and argue for the use of lethal force in similar situations. I'd rather have one innocent persons death on my mind for acting in good faith than 100 people's from sitting and doing nothing for fear of offending over pc over nannied do gooding human rights loving idiots who can't see the bigger picture. you obviously dont do facts? he NEVER ran never even walked quickly the police fibbed about that in fact just one of a number of blatant lies they told, (jumped a turnstile , wore a heavy winter coat etc etc) to try and justify the trigger happy ***** balls up. KW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
compo90 Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 While I have NO knowledge of violent crime rates in France, Germany or all of europe I'd be VERY surprised if they were lower than the UK. I'd be even more surprised if the US was lower. As ever I am willing to admit I am wrong but am naturally sceptical when it comes to statistics........... http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri-crime-total-crimes the link above gives the total number of crimes in all countries......USA is top of the tree, but i put that down to the size of the country and the massive population.....closely behind is the UK then germany...... but when you compare countries like this, you have to consider the willingness of people to report crimes, the population density and make up of that population (immigration/age/poverty) this link shows that the UK is a crime hotspot http://www.civitas.org.uk/wordpress/2010/08/05/latest-international-comparison-of-crime-in-oecd-countries/ and to quote that page England and Wales were above average for rape, robbery, burglary and car theft and below average for intentional homicide and ‘major assault’: 14th out of 34 countries for homicide. 8th out of 34 for rape. 6th out of 34 for robbery. 17th out of 28 for major assault. 5th out of 34 for burglary. 7th out of 33 for car theft. Compared with our peers, the report shows that we are a high-crime society. so the rest of europe is below the Uk in the crime maps.......the USA is the highest and then its us in the UK, then everyone else........I have a few friends who have lived in europe, and one mate who particularly liked the fact that the police in france were armed, he states it made him feel safer, he aint a gun enthusiast himself but appreciated the old bill in france being armed but one thing i agree with you on and also which homer simpson stated http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KF6SNxNIV08 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigt1754 Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 Christ on a bike is this still going on........ These kinda threads normally make me giggle, but bored now I'll get me coat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.