Met Police handing in there Firearms

[countryman]

Do you blame them, would you want there job in this day and age, looks like over a 100 officers have stood down in support of there colleague up for a murder charge.

[12gauge82]

6 minutes ago, countryman said:

Do you blame them, would you want there job in this day and age, looks like over a 100 officers have stood down in support of there colleague up for a murder charge.

Agreed, I would imagine your dammed if you do and dammed if you don't. Shoot a gang banger that you honestly believe is an imminent threat to yourself or someone else and the media will paint them as a family man who can do no wrong, if it's someone of a certain demographic protest groups will claim your a racist and only shot them due to their colour regardless of any logical reasoning to the counter and the IOPC appear out to get the scalp of a firearms officer. Definitely not a job I'd do voluntarily, particularly in an inner city area.

Edited September 24, 2023 by 12gauge82

[Rem260]

44 minutes ago, countryman said:

Do you blame them, would you want there job in this day and age, looks like over a 100 officers have stood down in support of there colleague up for a murder charge.

Probably short term only. Until they realise/remember what response policing is like these days.. A few shifts will have them begging for thier tickets back.🤣

Edited September 24, 2023 by Rem260

[matone]

Nope,don`t blame them at all . It`s misadventure if that sort of job goes askew.

[ordnance]

You can't have a situation where the police dictate if a officers actions were legal or not, by deciding not to carry out their duties because they are not happy about a officer being charged they are basically wanting immunity from prosecution. Any that are not now willing to carry firearms should never be allowed to return to firearms duties in the future.

Edited September 24, 2023 by ordnance

[ordnance]

1 hour ago, countryman said:

Do you blame them, would you want there job in this day and age, looks like over a 100 officers have stood down in support of there colleague up for a murder charge.

No one forced them to take on firearms duties during training they would be made well aware that they could be charged if they mess up, that would be the time to decide it wasn't for them. Doing it now amounts to wanting immunity from prosecution and now some are splitting out the dummy if like the rest of us they have to operate within the law.

Edited September 24, 2023 by ordnance

[Sweet11-87]

i think its more the fact that they no longer want the responsibility of being an armed officers when they can end up charged with murder based on the situation looked at with hindsite and not from how it apeared at the time.

 

 

[Minky]

8 minutes ago, ordnance said:

You can't have a situation where the police dictate if a officers actions were legal or not, by deciding not to carry out their duties because they are not happy about a officer being charged they are basically wanting immunity from prosecution. Any that are not now willing to carry firearms should never be allowed in the future to return to firearms duties.

Totally agree.   The PERSON who was shot was boxed in by marked and unmarked police cars and he was shot in the head through the windscreen.   No guns or weapons were found in the vehicle and thats why the officer has been charged with MURDER.   There's been far too many people shot and killed by the police and no one gets held responsible.  All this they deserved what they got is not good enough and it would be more apparent if it was your son or daughter that had been shot.

[udderlyoffroad]

1 hour ago, countryman said:

Do you blame them, would you want there job in this day and age, looks like over a 100 officers have stood down in support of there colleague up for a murder charge.

Good on them, but I tend to agree that as soon as they get reminded of the realities of being a front line/response officer they’ll be wondering about the green-ness of the grass!

16 minutes ago, Minky said:

There's been far too many people shot and killed by the police and no one gets held responsible

You appear to be conflating the UK in 2023 with the county of Los Angeles in the early 90s

Given the amount of gang violence in big cities, it’s frankly remarkable more people aren’t shot by police.

[WalkedUp]

IMO it should be the commanding officer taking the charge. When I was held at gun point by a police firearms unit I was unarmed and compliant, the guns were incorrectly in ‘high-ready’ pointed at my centre of mass, with painted fingers inside the trigger guards. Eventually a mistake will be made and it is likely more to do with poor training, poor intelligence or poor officer selection than an individual’s mistake or misdeed.

I don’t know enough about the case to comment on the individual circumstances as I’ve only read what is in the press. Nonetheless it appears to be a sensible degree of awareness by his colleagues to hand their tickets back in if they as individuals face prosecution for organisational mistakes made by the force. I feel the same about prosecution of individual elderly veterans that were put in an inappropriate situation by politicians and high command. 

Edited September 24, 2023 by WalkedUp

[Minky]

6 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

Good on them, but I tend to agree that as soon as they get reminded of the realities of being a front line/response officer they’ll be wondering about the green-ness of the grass!

You appear to be conflating the UK in 2023 with the county of Los Angeles in the early 90s

Given the amount of gang violence in big cities, it’s frankly remarkable more people aren’t shot by police.

NO.. not somewhere else.  ... IN THE UK.  A few years ago they burst in on a bloke in Hastings who was naked in bed and shot him dead,!!  The reason was they THOUGHT that he was armed.  There was the bloke who had a chair leg tied to  his crossbar... shot dead.  Then there wasthe Brazilian bloke who was an electrician that they shot  repeatedly in the head on the underground.  Total armatures.   The police aren't  fit for purpose  full stop and this is born out by the thousands that are going to be sacked by the metropolitan police.  The  vast majority of the public have no confidence in the police at and they've been warned to get it sorted or the whole organisation will be disbanded.  A recent discussion with an feo revealed to me that everything was a complete shambles.

[ordnance]

1 hour ago, Sweet11-87 said:

i think its more the fact that they no longer want the responsibility of being an armed officers when they can end up charged with murder based on the situation looked at with hindsite and not from how it apeared at the time.

 

 

It's as well the police here don't think like that, or there would be no officers.

[GHE]

1 hour ago, Minky said:

NO.. not somewhere else.  ... IN THE UK.  A few years ago they burst in on a bloke in Hastings who was naked in bed and shot him dead,!!  The reason was they THOUGHT that he was armed.  There was the bloke who had a chair leg tied to  his crossbar... shot dead.  Then there wasthe Brazilian bloke who was an electrician that they shot  repeatedly in the head on the underground.  Total armatures.   The police aren't  fit for purpose  full stop and this is born out by the thousands that are going to be sacked by the metropolitan police.  The  vast majority of the public have no confidence in the police at and they've been warned to get it sorted or the whole organisation will be disbanded.  A recent discussion with an feo revealed to me that everything was a complete shambles.

"Questionable" police shooting aren't unusual. Investigations are slow and incomplete and withheld evidence often causes very long delays to inquests. The public suspect that the police cover up for each other, and that the system covers up for individuals.

Police officers have been threatening to refuse to carry their guns for many years if any one of them was ever charged with a criminal offence. That's now finally happened and of course they've carried out their threat.

Obviously I'm not making any kind of judgement, I wasn't there and am happy to wait for the version of the truth that comes out at the trial, but I'm happy that a police officer is finally being held to account for his actions. Everyone else is, including the military, who are subject to military "justice" which is less fair than civilian justice, so why should the police be protected?

One really weird thing though - he has been charged with murder, which requires premeditation. Surely he should have been charged with manslaughter instead? How can anyone in that situation be charged with murder?

If I was a cynic I might suspect that even the CPS must know that he cannot be convicted of murder, and are hoping for a not guilty verdict.

And then of course, our wonderful Home Secretary has made some very supportive comments - this is a matter for a jury, how can anyone get a fair trial when a gobby politician shoots her mouth off and tells other people what to think?

[bottletopbill]

We will never know what he thought as he pulled the trigger.

Did he move and the officer thought he was going for something a split second to make a decision.

We all see things in a different ways.

[Scully]

1 hour ago, ordnance said:

It's as well the police here don't think like that, or there would be no officers.

I’m not sure how that would work anyhow, as PSNI officers would possibly have to forego the option to carry when off duty also, as a result? 
Anyhow, in my opinion, serving mainland officers who decide to down tools as it were, are in effect holding government to ransom to the effect they expect to be free from the consequences of shooting civilians, and that cannot be allowed to happen. 
I understand they're in a no win situation at times, but they surely knew that prior to signing up for armed response. 
 

[ordnance]

6 minutes ago, Scully said:

I’m not sure how that would work anyhow, as PSNI officers would possibly have to forego the option to carry when off duty also, as a result? 
Anyhow, in my opinion, serving mainland officers who decide to down tools as it were, are in effect holding government to ransom to the effect they expect to be free from the consequences of shooting civilians, and that cannot be allowed to happen. 
I understand they're in a no win situation at times, but they surely knew that prior to signing up for armed response. 
 

👍

[Vince Green]

They always threaten to throw their toys out of the pram and have a sulk when one of their number gets held to account.

They always go back though because it's such a cushy number 99.9% of the time and they get a lot of overtime

It's considered cushy because they don't get involved in all the grim messy aspects of daily police work dealing with violent drunks and  gory road accidents etc

But whatever job you do you are legally responsible if you make a mistake and screw up. Electricians gas engineers chefs etc can all kill people and they get no immunity from the consequences. If a police car or a fire engine or ambulance go through a red light on a call and kill somebody they get the book thrown at them. So why should a firearms officers be any different?

I've heard it said more than once that the officers that gravitate to these squads tend to be regarded as failed bobbies by their colleagues Ones that have moved sideways because they weren't that good at general police work. So where are they going to go if they hand back their blue cards?

 

Edited September 24, 2023 by Vince Green

[Vince Green]

55 minutes ago, GHE said:

 

If I was a cynic I might suspect that even the CPS must know that he cannot be convicted of murder, and are hoping for a not guilty verdict.

This ^^^^

[ordnance]

Quote

’im not sure how that would work anyhow, as PSNI officers would possibly have to forego the option to carry when off duty also, as a result? 

The PSNI have armed responce officers like the rest of the UK, they could refuse that duty but keep their duty personal protection weapons.

Edited September 24, 2023 by ordnance

[enfieldspares]

4 hours ago, Rem260 said:

Probably short term only. Until they realise/remember what response policing is like these days.. A few shifts will have them begging for thier tickets back.🤣

Best post of all on this thread!

[ordnance]

22 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

This ^^^^

Quote

Murder is committed when a person of sound mind unlawfully kills another person and they have the intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm

It could be argued when he shot the person in the head, he had the intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm. 

Edited September 24, 2023 by ordnance

[enfieldspares]

2 hours ago, Minky said:

NO.. not somewhere else.  ... IN THE UK.  A few years ago they burst in on a bloke in Hastings who was naked in bed and shot him dead,!!  The reason was they THOUGHT that he was armed.  There was the bloke who had a chair leg tied to  his crossbar... shot dead.  Then there wasthe Brazilian bloke who was an electrician that they shot  repeatedly in the head on the underground.  Total armatures.   The police aren't  fit for purpose  full stop and this is born out by the thousands that are going to be sacked by the metropolitan police.  The  vast majority of the public have no confidence in the police at and they've been warned to get it sorted or the whole organisation will be disbanded.  A recent discussion with an feo revealed to me that everything was a complete shambles.

And Stephen Waldorf who, thankfully, survived the five shots put into him and wasn't hit by the other nine shots fired at him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Stephen_Waldorf

26 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

They always threaten to throw their toys out of the pram and have a sulk when one of their number gets held to account.

They always go back though because it's such a cushy number 99.9% of the time and they get a lot of overtime

It's considered cushy because they don't get involved in all the grim messy aspects of daily police work dealing with violent drunks and  gory road accidents etc

But whatever job you do you are legally responsible if you make a mistake and screw up. Electricians gas engineers chefs etc can all kill people and they get no immunity from the consequences. If a police car or a fire engine or ambulance go through a red light on a call and kill somebody they get the book thrown at them. So why should a firearms officers be any different?

I've heard it said more than once that the officers that gravitate to these squads tend to be regarded as failed bobbies by their colleagues Ones that have moved sideways because they weren't that good at general police work. So where are they going to go if they hand back their blue cards?

 

Another good post.

Edited September 24, 2023 by enfieldspares

[ordnance]

 

Quote

 

4 hours ago, Rem260 said:

Probably short term only. Until they realise/remember what response policing is like these days.. A few shifts will have them begging for thier tickets back.

 

Thats why when they hand their tickets in they should not be alowed in the future to be firearms officers, I think that would make some think twice. 

[Vince Green]

13 minutes ago, ordnance said:

It could be argued when he shot the person in the head, he the intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily 

 

The defence are going to say it was an AD or a malfunction and the prosecution appear to have deliberately left room for that defence to upheld. 

Edited September 24, 2023 by Vince Green

[ordnance]

7 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

They are going to say it was an AD or a malfunction and they have left room for that defence to upheld. 

Could do .