Shoot first, think afterwards

[ordnance]

 

So what about the Armed Response Units in the PSNI. Do they just get the basic two weeks training or is there a distinction?

Yes they have armed response, but the vast majority are not armed response and firearms training is just part of their basic training.

[UKPoacher]

Yes they have armed response, but the vast majority are not armed response and firearms training is just part of their basic training.

 

So there is a distinction then. Another of your 'facts' laid bare.

[ordnance]

Hey Ordnance, with the stance that you're taking in this thread, would you admit then that the soldiers who killed innocent civilians on bloody sunday should be subjected to the full extent of the law? Would you also admit that the state funded and supported hit squads (military reaction force to name but one) who murdered and maimed innocent civilians should also be held individually accountable? I'm interested in your response here. Lets not play tit for tat though. We all know about ira atrocities, so don't remind us all of them. For once, just answer the question.

I think any member of the security forces or anyone else that acted out side the law should be prosecuted if there is enough evidence. You then have to ask the question do they get the same deal as terrorists got. PS Thats all i am saying on that subject bringing in the Northern Ireland troubles will get the thread closed.

 

 

 

Under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, terrorists on either side of the divide need serve only two years in jail, including time spent on remand, if convicted of a terrorist offence, including murder. But the act of parliament, signed in 1998, that gives leniency to terrorists does not apply to soldiers or police officers.

Edited February 19, 2017 by ordnance

[Cannon]

So the act of security/state forces shooting civilians doesn't fall under the description of terrorism? Are you saying they weren't terrorists when undertaking these activities?

[ordnance]

 

So there is a distinction then. Another of your 'facts' laid bare.

I never said there are not armed response units in N/I.

Armed Response Unit | Police Service of Northern Ireland

https://www. psni.police.uk/inside-psni/our-departments/.../armed-response-unit/

[ordnance]

So the act of security/state forces shooting civilians doesn't fall under the description of terrorism? Are you saying they weren't terrorists when undertaking these activities?

You have got my answer stop trying to hijack the thread. PM me if you want to continue if i have time i will reply,

 

 

 

Quote Manta. PS Thats all i am saying on that subject bringing in the Northern Ireland troubles will get the thread closed.

Edited February 19, 2017 by ordnance

[Cannon]

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds

[UKPoacher]

 

I never said there are not armed response units in N/I.

Armed Response Unit | Police Service of Northern Ireland

https://www. psni.police.uk/inside-psni/our-departments/.../armed-response-unit/

 

 

No? You made out that there was no difference between policing and armed policing. If that is the case why do they have a specialised firearms unit?

[ordnance]

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds

Yeah i will take that as a complaint coming from you. Fell free to open your own thread on the subject.

[Cannon]

Yeah i will take that as a complaint

 

I wasn't complaining. Merely stating a fact. I see your fellow uk citizens aren't very sympathetic with your bigoted viewpoints Edited February 19, 2017 by Cannon

[ordnance]

 

No? You made out that there was no difference between policing and armed policing. If that is the case why do they have a specialised firearms unit?

All the police are armed and go about their job like any other UK police offices, if the police have intelligence that a armed attack etc is planed they specialist officers will be used. They woint be sent out to a report of someone shooting in a field etc, local police will deal with. I have had police come out to me when i shot over the fields, never armed response, unlike in the rest of the UK.

Edited February 19, 2017 by ordnance

[Beardo]

play nice or the thread gets locked guys (personal attacks will not be tolerated)...

[hawkfanz]

i wouldn,t like the police to be armed all the time,but i like the idea of armed response when needed,but i remember many years ago the old bill bursting in on a guy and filling him with bullets while in bed,and it werent even the right person,,and more recently in warrington a single bullet through the windscreen of the car killed the driver instantly no guns were in the vehicle,ok so they were known to be villains so does that give the police the right to shoot to kill because of that ?

[keg]

um a good boy he was not as we know keg

 

dave

Sorry Dave, i was trying to be sarcastic about all the local news reports etc, apologies if that didn't come over. Even Stevie Wonder could see it!

[UKPoacher]

All the police are armed and go about their job like any other UK police offices, if the police have intelligence that a armed attack etc is planed they specialist officers will be used. They woint be sent out to a report of someone shooting in a field etc, local police will deal with. I have had police come out to me when i shot over the fields, never armed response, unlike in the rest of the UK.

 

But earlier you were making out that there was no distinction. No difference between armed policing and normal policing. Same as you were implying that all PSNI officers just did basic two week training. That is not true. The armed response units receive a higher level of training similar to that on the mainland.

 

Now here is a question for you;

 

Given that the majority of PSNI officers carry a firearm on and off duty for their own protection whilst every mainland armed officer has to take their weapons from a locked storage, load and check them each day they are on duty and similarly then unload and store their firearms at the end of every shift. Whereas the PSNI officers might simply swap holsters and not unload and reload their weapons in days or even weeks. And that they will usually have more then one firearm to check, load, unload and check unlike the vast majority of PSNI officers who only carry one. And that they undergo a far more training days and more strenuous training. Now, why do you think that there are more accidental discharges pro-rata on the mainland than in Northern Ireland?

 

You can file that question with all the other unanswered ones that you have been asked.

[12gauge82]

 

But earlier you were making out that there was no distinction. No difference between armed policing and normal policing. Same as you were implying that all PSNI officers just did basic two week training. That is not true. The armed response units receive a higher level of training similar to that on the mainland.

 

Now here is a question for you;

 

Given that the majority of PSNI officers carry a firearm on and off duty for their own protection whilst every mainland armed officer has to take their weapons from a locked storage, load and check them each day they are on duty and similarly then unload and store their firearms at the end of every shift. Whereas the PSNI officers might simply swap holsters and not unload and reload their weapons in days or even weeks. And that they will usually have more then one firearm to check, load, unload and check unlike the vast majority of PSNI officers who only carry one. And that they undergo a far more training days and more strenuous training. Now, why do you think that there are more accidental discharges pro-rata on the mainland than in Northern Ireland?

 

You can file that question with all the other unanswered ones that you have been asked.

I certainly belive the reason the MET has more ND's than PSNI is due to them having far more AFO's, SFO's, ARV's & CTSFO's than the PSNI. The MET's specialist firearms units are obviously going to conduct far more risky training practices like live fire exercises, it's like comparing apples and oranges.

[old man]

 

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.

Why shouldn't he make a phone call and run somewhere, could be 10 legitimate reasons?

Not good enough in my book for him to be shot?

 

But, in any event we will never know the "truth" of the matter as we are all programmed to show ourselves in the best light?

[12gauge82]

Why shouldn't he make a phone call and run somewhere, could be 10 legitimate reasons?

Not good enough in my book for him to be shot?

 

But, in any event we will never know the "truth" of the matter as we are all programmed to show ourselves in the best light?

I can't see anywhere that anyone has said it was okay for him to be shot.

There were mistakes made with the case you mentioned and before I say anything else I am going to say what a tragic event that was and I feel for his family and him.

However I also feel very sorry for the officers involved in the shooting, they did nothing but their job and acted in a totally professional manner, I wouldn't want to have been in their shoes that day, their intelligence was that Charles was in fact one of the 7/7 bombers and they believed he was going to blow up the train, the officers only caught up with him once he'd boarded the train and were ordered to carry out a stop (critical shot), effectively an execution to prevent him blowing the train up, (in effect the person pulling the trigger was not the officers but the high ranking official giving the order) in the officers minds that could well have included themselves and I wonder how many on here would run on to a train they believed would blow up at any moment. The mistakes were made by the surveillance team who mistook Charles for omar who he bore a striking resemblance and unfortunately lived in the same block of flats, in my mind the other mistake was not using the surveillance team to stop him before he reached the train station, unfortunately I believe the surveillance team may not have been police and possibly not armed making that impossible, by the time the armed police did catch up with him we know the rest.

Now if the armed cops had caught up with him and not shot who the honestly believed was a terrorist and the train had of been blown up killing hundreds, I wonder if the same critics on here would still be slating those officers? It must be an impossible job at times and like I've already said I feel very sorry for the family and the armed cops who were put in an impossible situation.

[old man]

Not aiming to be critical in any way just exploring the scenario.

[UKPoacher]

Not aiming to be critical in any way just exploring the scenario.

 

If you read the post again you will see that I explained that there were three coincidences; he came from an address believed to house terrorists and was mistaken for one of them, he got off and back on the same bus after making a quick phone call and he started running to get on a train just as the doors were closing. In normal circumstances he would probably have been tracked on CCTV and pulled for questioning at an appropriate moment. But this was the day after several terrorists had caused explosions in London and were still on the loose. There was a high risk of further explosions and given the manner of the suicide bomber it isn't deemed wise to walk up to one, produce your Warrant Card and ask for a chat.

 

He was the victim of circumstances. BUT the police acted in the best interests of the public and despite what Ordnance would have you believe, those police officers were held to account in law and in disciplinary hearings.

[Lord v]

 

If you read the post again you will see that I explained that there were three coincidences; he came from an address believed to house terrorists and was mistaken for one of them, he got off and back on the same bus after making a quick phone call and he started running to get on a train just as the doors were closing. In normal circumstances he would probably have been tracked on CCTV and pulled for questioning at an appropriate moment. But this was the day after several terrorists had caused explosions in London and were still on the loose. There was a high risk of further explosions and given the manner of the suicide bomber it isn't deemed wise to walk up to one, produce your Warrant Card and ask for a chat.

 

He was the victim of circumstances. BUT the police acted in the best interests of the public and despite what Ordnance would have you believe, those police officers were held to account in law and in disciplinary hearings.

 

I believe one of the outcomes from the inquiry was that the police did not, at the time, have radios that actually worked while underground.

 

There was a lot of debate about the timings of when the police realised that they had the wrong guy, but ultimately I believe that was shown immaterial as they couldn't have got word to the officers chasing him even if they had wanted to.

[ordnance]

 

But earlier you were making out that there was no distinction. No difference between armed policing and normal policing. Same as you were implying that all PSNI officers just did basic two week training. That is not true. The armed response units receive a higher level of training similar to that on the mainland.

 

Now here is a question for you;

 

Given that the majority of PSNI officers carry a firearm on and off duty for their own protection whilst every mainland armed officer has to take their weapons from a locked storage, load and check them each day they are on duty and similarly then unload and store their firearms at the end of every shift. Whereas the PSNI officers might simply swap holsters and not unload and reload their weapons in days or even weeks. And that they will usually have more then one firearm to check, load, unload and check unlike the vast majority of PSNI officers who only carry one. And that they undergo a far more training days and more strenuous training. Now, why do you think that there are more accidental discharges pro-rata on the mainland than in Northern Ireland?

 

You can file that question with all the other unanswered ones that you have been asked.

Possibly i doint know thats why i asked the question, there are different ways of looking at it, yes they take handguns home with them, not rifles that that would be unloaded and checked in, the fact that they have the firearm 24 hours a day 7 days a week would naturally increase the possibility of a N/D over someone that had a firearms 3 or 4 shifts a week. As for training i would have thought if the training was that strenuous on use and familiarity with the firearms they would have less N/Ds. Are you saying more training on firearms makes the users more dangerous to themselves their colleague and the public.

 

 

 

PSNI officers just did basic two week training

I never said all PSNI officers did two weeks basic training.

Edited February 20, 2017 by ordnance

[UKPoacher]

The Met even managed to have more than the PSNI who are armed on and off duty.

 

 

 

Possibly i doint know thats why i asked the question, there are different ways of looking at it, yes they take handguns home with them, not rifles that that would be unloaded and checked in, the fact that they have the firearm 24 hours a day 7 days a week would naturally increase the possibility of a N/D over someone that had a firearms 3 or 4 shifts a week. As for training i would have thought if the training was that strenuous on use and familiarity with the firearms they would have less N/Ds. Are you saying more training on firearms makes the users more dangerous to themselves their colleague and the public.

 

I never said all PSNI officers did two weeks basic training.

 

The problem with you is that you claim to support the police. But every time there is a thread on armed police you start undermining them with snide comments and innuendos and then when challenged either claim not to have said what you clearly have or attempt to qualify it with stuff you trawl up off the Internet, some of which bears no relevance to the point. Then you avoid all questions once you realise that you are wrong again.

 

You brought up the negligent discharges:

 

"My point how do these highly trained police response units have so many negligent discharges, fair question i think." And

 

"So N/Ds on the range are OK interesting view. Still doesn't answer the question how the MET with less armed officers who hand in their firearms after their shift managed to have more N/Ds than the PSNI who have their firearms 24/7."

 

The answer is that the more you handle a weapon the more chance of making a mistake, the more pressurised the situation, the more chances of making a mistake, the more training you do the more likelihood of a training ground incident. If you leave your weapon in a holster for days on end and never touch it, never have to take it out of the holster operationally and only train two days a year then it is less likely that you will have an accidental discharge. Simple!

 

As for the Harry Stanley incident; again you trawled something up on Google that is incorrect. But you are so blinded by bias against police you don't realise it. And you still haven't answered the question posed directly to you two days ago.

 

I don't know what is eating you. There is obviously something, but just let it rest for while. Use your time creatively by researching properly the firearms incidents in the past and you might surprise yourself by finding out that armed police officers are accountable to the law. Some have been arrested following police shootings. So you have no need to keep banging on about it because it happened many, many years ago without your knowledge.

[ordnance]

 

 

The answer is that the more you handle a weapon the more chance of making a mistake, the more pressurised the situation, the more chances of making a mistake, the more training you do the more likelihood of a training ground incident. If you leave your weapon in a holster for days on end and never touch it, never have to take it out of the holster operationally and only train two days a year then it is less likely that you will have an accidental discharge. Simple!

First its not a mistake, its negligence no excuses. Second they doint take their firearms home in their issued holster, after work they conceal carry their firearms in a concealed holster, glove compartment, front seat under a news paper, in a handbag etc, so it would be out of their holster daily, not in a holster for days on end i assumed you would have known that.

 

 

 

As for the Harry Stanley incident; again you trawled something up on Google that is incorrect

I never brought up the Harry Stanley incident, but now that you have what was incorrect about what i posted. ?

 

 

 

The problem with you is that you claim to support the police

I do but unlike you its not unqualified the police are always right support . Did you read the hillsborough disaster report for example that highlighted lying corruption and incompetence in all ranks, their are other numerous examples of similar behaviour.

[Cranfield]

You have been advised to cool down the tone of this debate, but appear to be taking no notice, one last chance or it gets closed.