Mike737 Posted August 1, 2014 Report Share Posted August 1, 2014 Well I generally resist the temptation to join in on this type of thread; but I suppose that as very few of the contributors on here have ever been police officers, and even less of them firearms officers (or AFO's, or whatever they are called locally), then most of the opinions are those of people are without actual knowledge of the stresses and strains involved in a microsecond-decision of 'should I shoot or should I not shoot a human being'. If the officer cannot see the hands of the 'suspect', he has no idea whether that person is holding a gun. These officers were tasked (under orders to) with a 'hard stop' of known criminals, who it turned out had weapons. They do not have x-ray vision. There is a split-second of decision time, 'Do I shoot him, or will he shoot me? ('I have a wife and children at home; he is a 'scumbag criminal' on his way to kill some other 'scumbag criminals''). And whether that decision is right or wrong, it has to be made in that split-second. Because if you make the wrong one, you're dead! (Or a colleague). And if you make the other wrong one, the 'criminal' is dead. Not many (if any) of those criticising the officer have ever been in his/her position... All firearms' officers are volunteers. They accept this extra responsibility to protect the public. None of them ever sets out to shoot someone. It is tragic from all directions, but at the end of the day, the officer set out to protect people, and the criminal was on his way to shoot someone... Mike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted August 1, 2014 Report Share Posted August 1, 2014 Well I generally resist the temptation to join in on this type of thread; but I suppose that as very few of the contributors on here have ever been police officers, and even less of them firearms officers (or AFO's, or whatever they are called locally), then most of the opinions are those of people are without actual knowledge of the stresses and strains involved in a microsecond-decision of 'should I shoot or should I not shoot a human being'. If the officer cannot see the hands of the 'suspect', he has no idea whether that person is holding a gun. These officers were tasked (under orders to) with a 'hard stop' of known criminals, who it turned out had weapons. They do not have x-ray vision. There is a split-second of decision time, 'Do I shoot him, or will he shoot me? ('I have a wife and children at home; he is a 'scumbag criminal' on his way to kill some other 'scumbag criminals''). And whether that decision is right or wrong, it has to be made in that split-second. Because if you make the wrong one, you're dead! (Or a colleague). And if you make the other wrong one, the 'criminal' is dead. Not many (if any) of those criticising the officer have ever been in his/her position... All firearms' officers are volunteers. They accept this extra responsibility to protect the public. None of them ever sets out to shoot someone. It is tragic from all directions, but at the end of the day, the officer set out to protect people, and the criminal was on his way to shoot someone... Mike. Suggest you read the transcripts posted on this thread, which the cps are using to charge him with murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike737 Posted August 1, 2014 Report Share Posted August 1, 2014 I have, but the officer didn't have the opportunity of reading them at the time... (As is the case with all lawyers in a courtroom...) Just because some one is charged with something doesn't mean they are guilty. The Court is going to test the evidence. Memory is fallible... My brother-in-law was in the SAS at the time of the Aden crisis. He said 'If a kid threw an orange at you, you shot him, because it was more than likely a grenade, wrapped in an orange skin'. So, as a (former) member of the Armed Forces, tasked with protecting Britain's interests, how do you differentiate between the two scenarios? I am not saying that the officer made the right decision, or didn't. I am saying that it was not an easy decision, and there are too many people on here who have no idea what it would be like to be in the position where they had to make that decision, yet they are giving judgement... Mike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted August 1, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 1, 2014 And if you make the other wrong one, the 'criminal' is dead. Not many (if any) of those criticising the officer have ever been in his/her position... All firearms' officers are volunteers. They accept this extra responsibility to protect the public. None of them ever sets out to shoot someone. It is tragic from all directions, but at the end of the day, the officer set out to protect people, and the criminal was on his way to shoot someone... Mike. As you say they are volunteers, so if they can't deal with the responsibilities and stress of the job they should not apply. Does the same not go for police in countries where they are all armed they have the same responsibilities. They cain't be immune from the law just like the rest of us. I would not want to live in a country where armed police were immune from prosecution. I think that's what they call a police state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted August 1, 2014 Report Share Posted August 1, 2014 The main thrust of this thread has been two fold, those that blindly worship anything the armed officers do,and those that say they are accountable for their actions. I agree it is never an easy decision and it happens in micro seconds in a tense situation,but some thing was askew on that day and after inquiries where people giving evidence contradicted others and some evidence was shown to be wrong or impossible it was handed to the cps.And as you say a jury will decide. But when you read the transcripts you get an uneasy feeling of a bit of a twist on the truth or at times fabrication.It matters not that he was a police officer, he is no more above the law than me. As said by many,no doubt he will be found not guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted August 1, 2014 Report Share Posted August 1, 2014 As you say they are volunteers, so if they can't deal with the responsibilities and stress of the job they should not apply. Does the same not go for police in countries where they are all armed they have the same responsibilities. They cain't be immune from the law just like the rest of us. I would not want to live in a country where armed police were immune from prosecution. I think that's what they call a police state. is the right answer. KW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted August 1, 2014 Report Share Posted August 1, 2014 I don't want him to be found "not guilty". I want to see a proper trial and will abide by the Jury's verdict - as they hear all the evidence - not what they read in the paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuddster Posted August 1, 2014 Report Share Posted August 1, 2014 Better to be tried by twelve rather then be carried by six. Or you could be hung out to dry by the individual experts on here. F. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted August 1, 2014 Report Share Posted August 1, 2014 Better to be tried by twelve rather then be carried by six. Or you could be hung out to dry by the individual experts on here. F. Anything a bit more constructive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuddster Posted August 1, 2014 Report Share Posted August 1, 2014 Yes,shoot first, reload,then fix bayonets. In a constructive manner of speaking. F. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted August 2, 2014 Report Share Posted August 2, 2014 Its hard to say the policeman hasnt suffered since the shooting. Its unlikely that he is a typical 'Dirty Harry - clean up the streets type' as the tests they undergo, despite volunteering, are designed to eliminate all but the most suitable. I'd like to know what guidelines and what training he was subject to. Hindsight is a wonderful thing - we werent there. It seems like he has a case to answer but his colleagues have a right to be concerned since when they get it wrong its not a slap on the wrist. Should who the victim was carry any influence? All this has been dealt with, in theory. I just worry why, after 9 years, shows a lot of flaws in the justice system unless its 'new' evidence. Perhaps a new crime should be established, murder whilst armed, in apparent self-defence. I dont think murdering a known criminal who you know is armed, cant see clearly and with 2 accomplices, also armed, knowing they are intent on murder themsleves is an easy call. Maybe they had a hand grenade like the killing of the two female officers for 'fun'. I know where my support lies but the law is the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fisherman Mike Posted August 2, 2014 Report Share Posted August 2, 2014 I have, but the officer didn't have the opportunity of reading them at the time... (As is the case with all lawyers in a courtroom...) Just because some one is charged with something doesn't mean they are guilty. The Court is going to test the evidence. Memory is fallible... My brother-in-law was in the SAS at the time of the Aden crisis. He said 'If a kid threw an orange at you, you shot him, because it was more than likely a grenade, wrapped in an orange skin'. So, as a (former) member of the Armed Forces, tasked with protecting Britain's interests, how do you differentiate between the two scenarios? I am not saying that the officer made the right decision, or didn't. I am saying that it was not an easy decision, and there are too many people on here who have no idea what it would be like to be in the position where they had to make that decision, yet they are giving judgement... Mike. Game Set and Match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted August 2, 2014 Report Share Posted August 2, 2014 Game Set and Match.Hardly even a break point FM, The whole thread is not about knowing what it is like to be in that position,it is about being accountable under the law of this land no matter who you are or what you do. Or do you believe all men are equal,but some are more equal than others? Your serve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted August 2, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 2, 2014 (edited) I am not saying that the officer made the right decision, or didn't. I am saying that it was not an easy decision, and there are too many people on here who have no idea what it would be like to be in the position where they had to make that decision, yet they are giving judgement... No One is judging him, what they are saying is when they get it wrong they should be prosecuted just like anyone would be. After that its up to a jury to decide guilty or innocent again like they would do for anyone else. How would they manage in this part of the UK where all the police are armed on and off duty and have to make that type of decision shot or don't shoot on and off duty. they don't protest and threaten to quit if one of them is prosecuted for a bad shooting. As for a dangerous job how many armed response officers have being killed.? How many unarmed officers have being killed. ? I would see unarmed officers as as more courageous than armed officers at least armed officers have firearms if needed. Man shot dead by off-duty police officer is named. The man who was shot dead by an off-duty police officer in Belfast was 29-year-old Marc Alexander Ringland. He was from the east of the city. He died during a suspected robbery at a petrol station on the Albertbridge Road at 1905 GMT on Thursday. It is believed the officer was in the petrol station when the robbery is alleged to have taken place. He shot the man who died at the scene. Nobody else was injured in the incident. Most dangerous jobs UK. 1. Fishermen 2. Merchant seafarers 3. Aircraft flight deck officers 4. Railway lengthmen 5. Scaffolders 6. Roofers and glaziers 7. Forestry workers 8. Quarry and other mine workers 9. Dockers and stevedores 10. Lorry drivers Edited August 2, 2014 by ordnance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STOTTO Posted August 2, 2014 Report Share Posted August 2, 2014 (edited) Well I generally resist the temptation to join in on this type of thread; but I suppose that as very few of the contributors on here have ever been police officers, and even less of them firearms officers (or AFO's, or whatever they are called locally), then most of the opinions are those of people are without actual knowledge of the stresses and strains involved in a microsecond-decision of 'should I shoot or should I not shoot a human being'. If the officer cannot see the hands of the 'suspect', he has no idea whether that person is holding a gun. These officers were tasked (under orders to) with a 'hard stop' of known criminals, who it turned out had weapons. They do not have x-ray vision. There is a split-second of decision time, 'Do I shoot him, or will he shoot me? ('I have a wife and children at home; he is a 'scumbag criminal' on his way to kill some other 'scumbag criminals''). And whether that decision is right or wrong, it has to be made in that split-second. Because if you make the wrong one, you're dead! (Or a colleague). And if you make the other wrong one, the 'criminal' is dead. Not many (if any) of those criticising the officer have ever been in his/her position... All firearms' officers are volunteers. They accept this extra responsibility to protect the public. None of them ever sets out to shoot someone. It is tragic from all directions, but at the end of the day, the officer set out to protect people, and the criminal was on his way to shoot someone... Mike. Armed Response Police Officers in my view do an extremely difficult job and it will always be, ‘damned if you do and damned if you don’t’ but it is completely unacceptable to shoot someone on suspicion, if you are forced to shoot you do it upon a potentially life threatening visual event, unless you have orders to the contrary and then you are absolved of responsibility and are no guiltier than the firearm itself. However if a serious error of judgement is made and in this case there appear to have been six of them in quick succession and someone lays injured or dead as a result then the one who fired the shots must be held accountable and be forced to explain how he justified his actions. If this does not concur with the available evidence then it is up to the CPS to seek redress through the courts and in this case the charge is murder. As for not many people having found themselves in the position of making a split second decision of whether or not to discharge their weapon in a potentially life threatening situation. Many on this forum will be ex-service personnel that would have found themselves in that very situation many times and will therefore understand the issues involved, and there will be others that have legally carried personal weapons in a self-defence roll in foreign parts who will also have some understanding. I fully accept and appreciate that the more times that you are confronted with a potentially life threatening situation the twitchier you become and this can develop into a serious obstacle when making that most important of choices! Edited August 2, 2014 by STOTTO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted August 2, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 2, 2014 (edited) Armed Response Police Officers in my view do an extremely difficult job and it will always be, ‘damned if you do and damned if you don’t’ No if you justifiably shoot someone to protect yourself colleagues or civilians, you are not damaged or prosecuted. If you unjustifiably shoot someone you are damned and rightly so. If you can't handle these realities don't apply for the job. Edited August 2, 2014 by ordnance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomcantwell Posted August 2, 2014 Report Share Posted August 2, 2014 He shot a known gangster, in the company of other known criminals, whilst illegally held firearms were in the car. Am I the only one who thinks its not such a bad thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted August 2, 2014 Report Share Posted August 2, 2014 You might well be on your own - and so you should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fisherman Mike Posted August 2, 2014 Report Share Posted August 2, 2014 He shot a known gangster, in the company of other known criminals, whilst illegally held firearms were in the car. Am I the only one who thinks its not such a bad thing? No.. not at all... most of the forum members aren't Barrack room lawyers and on this type of topic its the same old lynch party who pipe up time after time. Only the officer in question knows the real circumstances No if you justifiably shoot someone to protect yourself colleagues or civilians, you are not damaged or prosecuted. If you unjustifiably shoot someone you are damned and rightly so. If you can't handle these realities don't apply for the job. If only it were that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted August 2, 2014 Report Share Posted August 2, 2014 If only it were that simple. In the eyes of the law it is FM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Harry Posted August 2, 2014 Report Share Posted August 2, 2014 Stotto an error of judgement as you put it does not constitute murder. That's a mistake where someone died. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted August 2, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 2, 2014 (edited) If only it were that simple. I do see it as that simple, I am sure in training they are warned that if they shoot someone and can't justify it they could be prosecuted however unlikely. At that stage if they are not happy about that then its time look for another job. So its their decision no one is forcing them I think its a bit rich if they then complain if an officer is charged. The only way to prevent it happening is to give police armed response officers immunity from prosecution. I would find that a worrying prospect and so should everyone else if they have any sense. Edited August 2, 2014 by ordnance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun4860 Posted August 2, 2014 Report Share Posted August 2, 2014 I want to see a proper trial and will abide by the Jury's verdict - as they hear all the evidence - not what they read on here. Corrected that for you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranfield Posted August 2, 2014 Report Share Posted August 2, 2014 I trust that he will get a fair trial and we should then abide by the verdict - whichever way it goes. The Police Officer might be a bad apple or he might be innocent. The Jury has not heard the case, nor retired to consider their verdict. Sometimes, on PW, we tend to jump straight to the verdict, without letting facts cloud the issue. A good point made and this thread is closed. Wait for the trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts