Dekers Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 Mmmmm, I half agree with you, but you are stretching things a bit by mentioning the Hatsan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 A debate is to argue about a subject in a formal manner,which is what we try to do on here,the other aspect of debate is arguing your points to sway the other side,this though is usually concluded by a vote of some sort so the debate can reach a satisfactory conclusion and end,and this is where we fall down as there is hardly ever a conclusion to the debates on here they keep rolling and get locked or they die a death through boredom. Wouldn't it be a boring forum and world if we all agreed with each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m3vert Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 Yeah getting closer to my prediction on page 1 now ;-) I wonder how long now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLuke Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 Mmmmm, I half agree with you, but you are stretching things a bit by mentioning the Hatsan. I heard they are useless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 (edited) And if police or innocent bystanders were being shot because the police waited until they knew there was a direct threat what then? At what point do you decide it is a direct threat, when you have a split second to react having been told the suspect is likely armed and dangerous? When you think the guy is going for a gun, when he physically has hold of a gun, when he is pointing the gun at you or when he fires the gun? Think carefully, is it really a gun, is it a cigarette lighter that looks like a gun, is it a toy, is it loaded, was he just making a gun shape with his hand/fingers? I have no beef whatsoever with your scenario, but as you say at what point do you decide there is actually a threat? recent events have seemingly seen a threat decided upon false or flawed information, and the subsequent opinion from some that even though the information was proved to be wrong the tragic outcome was still justified?how can it be? And sadly and more worrying in order to justify their mistakes the downright telling of lies as with the De Menzenes case, and as with Duggan the need to apologise to the family for saying that he was killed after opening fire when in fact he did no such thing, and again the blind opinion that even telling LIES is justified, Plod must accept they need to be beyond reproach, and if they believe that is an impossibility then they should welcome healthy unease, and a genuine questioning attitude, and not to tar those who do question as police bashers. KW Edited January 17, 2014 by kdubya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossy835 Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 police with guns, that makes me laugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 And if police or innocent bystanders were being shot because the police waited until they knew there was a direct threat what then? At what point do you decide it is a direct threat, when you have a split second to react having been told the suspect is likely armed and dangerous? When you think the guy is going for a gun, when he physically has hold of a gun, when he is pointing the gun at you or when he fires the gun? Think carefully, is it really a gun, is it a cigarette lighter that looks like a gun, is it a toy, is it loaded, was he just making a gun shape with his hand/fingers? The only way you could ever be sure it was a direct threat is when you or someone else has just been shot, a little late then perhaps! I have pointed out many times to you when you should decide a threat is sufficient to use lethal force, i have also posted links to the college of policing,use of force firearms and less lethal weapons,and also a link to the basic principles on the use of force and firearms by law enforcement officials from which the police college derive their rules,and quoted the use of lethal force within. If you are still not sure when lethal force can be used then i don't know what to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougy Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 What sort of accuracy do the armed response work on There's allot of folk on here that are very accurate shots with there rifles, (including me ;-) ) Just wondering, we know that we can take a knats testicle off at 200mtrs, I, m not saying that we could jump in the boots vof SO19 so please don't start. But surely with the training the armed response supposedly get why can they not disable the target with a well placed shot, not as they do at the moment a fatal shot or multiple, then find out after they fluffed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 I have no beef whatsoever with your scenario, but as you say at what point do you decide there is actually a threat? recent events have seemingly seen a threat decided upon false or flawed information, and the subsequent opinion from some that even though the information was proved to be wrong the tragic outcome was still justified?how can it be? And sadly and more worrying in order to justify their mistakes the downright telling of lies as with the De Menzenes case, and as with Duggan the need to apologise to the family that he was killed after opening fire when in fact he did no such thing, and again the blind opinion that even telling LIES is justified, Plod must accept they need to be beyond reproach, and if they believe that is an impossibility then they should welcome healthy unease, and a genuine questioning attitude, and not to tar those who do question as police bashers. KW I have no problem with questioning and investigation, indeed that should be the case in an open an honest way. "....and the subsequent opinion from some that even though the information was proved to be wrong the tragic outcome was still justified?how can it be?" It's called hindsight, we have all made decisions we considered correct at the time, he can only be judged on the situation at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 What sort of accuracy do the armed response work on There's allot of folk on here that are very accurate shots with there rifles, (including me ;-) ) Just wondering, we know that we can take a knats testicle off at 200mtrs, I, m not saying that we could jump in the boots vof SO19 so please don't start. But surely with the training the armed response supposedly get why can they not disable the target with a well placed shot, not as they do at the moment a fatal shot or multiple, then find out after they fluffed up. It is different scenario in an adrenalin fuelled situation compared to popping bunnys in a field,just hitting the target is good going,centre of mass is best shot, biggest area and likely to stop your target,trying to shoot a leg or arm is futile as you more than likely will miss and also when you miss where does the round go? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 I have no problem with questioning and investigation, indeed that should be the case in an open an honest way. "....and the subsequent opinion from some that even though the information was proved to be wrong the tragic outcome was still justified?how can it be?" It's called hindsight, we have all made decisions we considered correct at the time, he can only be judged on the situation at the time. yes but if our mistakes in our working environment lead to a death we WILL be prosecuted there lies the difference, they really NEED to be sure beforehand not afterwards, and if they do cock up they should as we would face the consequences. KW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitebridges Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 Hopefully good old Nige Farage and UKIP will announce in their manifesto that they'll arm the police. That'll be another million plus votes in the bag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 I have pointed out many times to you when you should decide a threat is sufficient to use lethal force, i have also posted links to the college of policing,use of force firearms and less lethal weapons,and also a link to the basic principles on the use of force and firearms by law enforcement officials from which the police college derive their rules,and quoted the use of lethal force within. If you are still not sure when lethal force can be used then i don't know what to say. And we still do not know what happened at the scene! That is my ongoing point, people are passing judgement based on media reports! You can describe/quote the whole rule book, it doesn't matter if we don't know what happened. I have purely thrown out some scenarios to illustrate this situation is not always black and white, very quick judgement calls may have to be made, they may not always be the right calls! Are you going to lock a Firearms Officer up for life if he made a mistake? Who is to make the call between mistake/negligence when it may have to be a split second decision! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 (edited) As i said in situations like this it should be a jury deciding with all the evidence presented to them.Do you not agree that at the very least there should be a public enquiry to show every thing is above board and nothing is being hidden? And as it states in the links i gave you the decision to pull the trigger and the subsequent outcome is down to the officer alone. Are you going to get the dead man's life back if the officer made a mistake? Edited January 17, 2014 by welsh1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 yes but if our mistakes in our working environment lead to a death we WILL be prosecuted there lies the difference, they really NEED to be sure beforehand not afterwards, and if they do cock up they should as we would face the consequences. KW Not necessarily, if it can be shown due consideration was given to the decision and everything at the time made it appear to be the right decision, then you will not necessarily be prosecuted, even if it is subsequently shown to be a mistake. Apparently that is what has happened here, the incident has been investigated and the CPS have found no case to answer! Let me continue to stress I am not trying to put a case for the police, I am trying to stay open minded! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 (edited) As i said in situations like this it should be a jury deciding with all the evidence presented to them. And as it states in the links i gave you the decision to pull the trigger and the subsequent outcome is down to the officer alone. Are you going to get the dead man's life back if the officer made a mistake? I don't have a problem with a court appearance, but the CPS don't think it is justified and another contributor here has also made it plain he thinks that a waste of time. With all due respect you are not going to get his life back if you take the officer to court either, guilty or not! Edit...and before you say......well, it will make others think, yes it probably will, it will make all Firearms Officers chuck in the towel as they did a while back, what then? I don't have the answers here and I don't pretend to, but neither am I second guessing what happened at the scene or why the CPS have not brought a case! Edited January 17, 2014 by Dekers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 At last we agree with each other over something The problem with the cps is that they are to closely linked to the police in instances like this,and by making a decision and not publishing their reasoning behind it makes the whole thing look bad,far better have it out in the courts transparent justice. My last comment was flippant as the officers mistake has a far bigger effect on the person shot than his. At least we have shown that posts like these are debate,and opposing sides can argue their points without resorting to name calling,and we have thrashed out a small bit of ground we agree on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 At last we agree with each other over something The problem with the cps is that they are to closely linked to the police in instances like this,and by making a decision and not publishing their reasoning behind it makes the whole thing look bad,far better have it out in the courts transparent justice. My last comment was flippant as the officers mistake has a far bigger effect on the person shot than his. At least we have shown that posts like these are debate,and opposing sides can argue their points without resorting to name calling,and we have thrashed out a small bit of ground we agree on. I understand in this case the Chief Constable is being charged with something under the H&S regs, that seems strange to me, the specific officer is not charged yet the CC is, I'm not quite sure how you can have one without the other? Perhaps we will find out more of the background to the events during this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 I understand in this case the Chief Constable is being charged with something under the H&S regs, that seems strange to me, the specific officer is not charged yet the CC is, I'm not quite sure how you can have one without the other? Perhaps we will find out more of the background to the events during this case. I believe the cc is being prosecuted because of errors in the operational procedure leading up to the death,and as the buck stops at the top it is him carrying the can,in reality it will lead to recommendations and a big fine if he is found guilty. But it may give us an insight as to what the armed officers were told about the operation and what intel they were being fed about the shot man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 I understand in this case the Chief Constable is being charged with something under the H&S regs, that seems strange to me, the specific officer is not charged yet the CC is, I'm not quite sure how you can have one without the other? Perhaps we will find out more of the background to the events during this case. If you want to see something strange re the death of a person at the hands of a copper and the reluctance of the CPS to prosecute a serving copper they believed responsible for a death, read up on the death of Blair Peach, and the ILLEGAL weapons the SPG had in their lockers seems nothings changed. KW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun4860 Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 This has already been done to death in other threads about the police Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts