Met Police handing in there Firearms

[udderlyoffroad]

I wonder how many of the more forthright on here have ever shouldered their gun aiming to take down a pigeon and only realised at the last minute it was a stock dove.  Never accidentally felled a leveret in low light thinking it was a particularly dopey rabbit?

Now imagine you knew if you made a mistake the footage would be all over the media. 

To err is human, even when the stakes are high - even more likely in fact. 

I'm amazed anyone signs up to be a firearms officer, especially if the attitudes on here are in any way a reflection of the general population.

17 minutes ago, welsh1 said:

You are correct, no one should break the law, it is not stacked against any police officer, they are given rules to follow and training for the given task.

Depends on your definitioncertainly is in my book

As for training, since when has 'training' been able to cover all scenarios, or even match the stress you're under in real life?  Not sure the training demonstrated in this video will ever come close to matching real life...

 

[Rem260]

10 minutes ago, welsh1 said:

You are correct, no one should break the law, it is not stacked against any police officer, they are given rules to follow and training for the given task.

 

I beg to differ. When was the last time that you heard of someone being prosecuted for failing to assist an officer in the execution of his/ her duty. How often is a person charged with resisting an arrest. These 2 offences if enforced routinely would dramatically reduce the dangers police officers face. The law says that they should expect these protections. When in reality they don't get them.

1 minute ago, udderlyoffroad said:

I wonder how many of the more forthright on here have ever shouldered their gun aiming to take down a pigeon and only realised at the last minute it was a stock dove.  Never accidentally felled a leveret in low light thinking it was a particularly dopey rabbit?

Now imagine you knew if you made a mistake the footage would be all over the media. 

To err is human, even when the stakes are high - even more likely in fact. 

I'm amazed anyone signs up to be a firearms officer, especially if the attitudes on here are in any way a reflection of the general population.

Depends on your definitioncertainly is in my book

As for training, since when has 'training' been able to cover all scenarios, or even match the stress you're under in real life?  Not sure the training demonstrated in this video will ever come close to matching real life...

 

Not watched video but to use a military saying

"No plan survives first contact"

[Rim Fire]

i remember a few on here with the covid threads when the nurses was working unbelievable hrs and taking risks to nurse the dying with covid and saying it comes with the job if they dont like it don't do it  same go for the police it comes with the job and if you join higher aspect of that job it comes with consequences that you sign up for 

As welsh1 said our special forces and regulars went to war and did some things (  which i would have done in there place ) and they was getting shot at which has later in years come back on them because they signed up to do a job that has consequences  

Edited September 25, 2023 by Rim Fire

[bottletopbill]

Does this mean more humane dispatch work for us  ?.

As most forces  use there own guys do not see this being cost effective option but hey ho.

[Rem260]

47 minutes ago, Rim Fire said:

i remember a few on here with the covid threads when the nurses was working unbelievable hrs and taking risks to nurse the dying with covid and saying it comes with the job if they dont like it don't do it  same go for the police it comes with the job and if you join higher aspect of that job it comes with consequences that you sign up for 

As welsh1 said our special forces and regulars went to war and did some things (  which i would have done in there place ) and they was getting shot at which has later in years come back on them because they signed up to do a job that has consequences  

Are you saying that they/you should be prosecuted for making thier life or death descions. Should all blue on blue be prosecuted. Or do we give the benifit doubt. If not when will the trial of Tony Blair take place. Some will say he is responsible for 100,000s of deaths based on a lie?

[Rim Fire]

i would like to see Blair go on trial but that isn't going to happen he made the decision to go to war he didn't pull the trigger on an unarmed man sat in a car 

[shaun4860]

4 hours ago, Rem260 said:

.

Not watched video but to use a military saying

"No plan survives first contact"

Heard a similar saying about boxing the other day.

Train all you want and have the best strategy.

It all goes out the window when the other guy punches you on the nose

[Rem260]

1 hour ago, Rim Fire said:

i would like to see Blair go on trial but that isn't going to happen he made the decision to go to war he didn't pull the trigger on an unarmed man sat in a car 

Do you know what action it was, that led to the officer opening fire. I don't, but here is 3 scenario's. (Not this incident)

Armed officers with guns drawn forcibly stop a vehicle suspected of a firearms incident.

1) Driver makes a sudden move. Officer shoots. No firearm found.  Murder?

2) Driver makes sudden move. Officer shoots. Firearm found.   Murder ?

3) Driver makes sudden move. Officer does not shoot. Driver then discharges a firearm having beaten the Officer to the draw.  Unlucky ?

Edited September 25, 2023 by Rem260

[pigeon controller]

23 hours ago, Minky said:

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.

I believe there was a marker on the car that it had carried arms in the past, the driver who was shot should have been aware of the history of the vehicle he was in.

[Rim Fire]

I bought a second hand car and I haven't a clue what it was used for  before  I had it 

[enfieldspares]

8 hours ago, welsh1 said:

Up until a few years ago the military were patrolling Northern Ireland, and making decisions about engaging on a very regular basis, the Army are very well trained and know their rules of engagement very well. But there are Veterens now being prosecuted for their actions 30- 40 years ago and in all cases they were cleared at the time ,i don't see many jumping to their defense in the political world.

The armed police know the risks when they take on the job, they should be highly trained,they are not above the law, and if (and i don't know the circumstances so i am guessing) one of them had the adrenaline take over and pulled the trigger prematurley resulting in the death of another who posed no threat, then he is guilty of an offence and should be prosecuted under the law. Those officers handing in their cards should not get them back, because they are either trying to bully the legal system into letting their mate off or they have realised they are simply not mentally able to do the job.

The law applies equally to all.

 

Thank you. I agree 100%.

[GHE]

39 minutes ago, Rem260 said:

Do you know what action it was, that led to the officer opening fire. I don't, but here is 3 scenario's. (Not this incident)

Armed officers with guns drawn forcibly stop a vehicle suspected of a firearms incident.

1) Driver makes a sudden move. Officer shoots. No firearm found.  Murder?

2) Driver makes sudden move. Officer shoots. Firearm found.   Murder ?

3) Driver makes sudden move. Officer does not shoot. Driver then discharges a firearm having beaten the Officer to the draw.  Unlucky ?

I agree. And that's why the case has to go to trial for, I believe, the first time ever.

The public tend to believe jury decisions and to disbelieve police decisions, one of the reasons why a jury should make the decision. I don't think that the public is assuming guilt here, we just want honesty and transparency.

17 minutes ago, pigeon controller said:

I believe there was a marker on the car that it had carried arms in the past, the driver who was shot should have been aware of the history of the vehicle he was in.

I believe (from news reports) that the marker was placed on the car just the day before. The victim apparently borrowed it from a friend - why should he have known that someone else had come to police notice?

[Rem260]

2 hours ago, Rim Fire said:

I bought a second hand car and I haven't a clue what it was used for  before  I had it 

Did you buy it from one of your gangsta mates.🤣

Some would say that it's more than coincidence. That a person convicted of a firearms offence and having spent time inside. Would then not know what his mates where involved in especially when lending out a expensive vehicle.

[12gauge82]

4 hours ago, Rem260 said:

Do you know what action it was, that led to the officer opening fire. I don't, but here is 3 scenario's. (Not this incident)

Armed officers with guns drawn forcibly stop a vehicle suspected of a firearms incident.

1) Driver makes a sudden move. Officer shoots. No firearm found.  Murder?

2) Driver makes sudden move. Officer shoots. Firearm found.   Murder ?

3) Driver makes sudden move. Officer does not shoot. Driver then discharges a firearm having beaten the Officer to the draw.  Unlucky ?

I don't think the law works like that, if an officer, or anyone else for that matter (the law doesn't difientiate between a police officer or a civilian in regard to use of lethal force). Uses lethal force, providing the person using lethal force has an honest held belief that there is an imminent threat to their or someone else's life and their use of force is proportional to that belief of threat, then there actions are lawful, regardless of if that person actually posed a threat or not. Therfore to the best of my limited knowledge, in both of your scenarios 1 and 2, the officer would not necessarily be guilty of murder, it would depend on what he believed and whether his actions were reasonable in the circumstances considering his honestly held belief.

[Rim Fire]

13 hours ago, Rem260 said:

Do you know what action it was, that led to the officer opening fire. I don't, but here is 3 scenario's. (Not this incident)

Armed officers with guns drawn forcibly stop a vehicle suspected of a firearms incident.

1) Driver makes a sudden move. Officer shoots. No firearm found.  Murder?

2) Driver makes sudden move. Officer shoots. Firearm found.   Murder ?

3) Driver makes sudden move. Officer does not shoot. Driver then discharges a firearm having beaten the Officer to the draw.  Unlucky ?

1 Driver is asked to get out of car no forearms found )    not Murder go home to family 

2) Driver asked to get out of car he complies weapon found goes to jail )  no Murder

3 ) Driver asked to get out of car makes sudden move holding a weapon officer shoots he gets all he deserved for not complying with officers commands ) NO murder 

 

Looks like you want to shoot first then ask later we getting more like America every day 

Edited September 26, 2023 by Rim Fire

[WalkedUp]

31 minutes ago, Rim Fire said:

Looks like you want to shoot first then ask later we getting more like America every day 

That was my experience when I was in in Chris Kaba’s position for an armed stop. The firearms team were ill disciplined and dangerous, all to do with poor training and poor selection.

[WalkedUp]

One of the lads in my team used be the firearms training officer for a southern police force, as a three-tour veteran he said the police protocols and procedures were a mess. Just one example, in Helmand under enemy fire they travelled with a clear breach, only loading the gun upon exit. In civilian life (were 9,999 out of 10,000 incidents don’t result in a fire fight) his police force travel with loaded weapons. My pal lost limbs in battle yet still wouldn’t elect to travel with a loaded gun. He was pretty scathing about these battle ready civilians (police). I also know a female armed response officer up north. 

[London Best]

1 hour ago, WalkedUp said:

That was my experience when I was in in Chris Kaba’s position for an armed stop. The firearms team were ill disciplined and dangerous, all to do with poor training and poor selection.

A mate of mine shoved to one side the barrel of a Heckler and Koch which a firearms officer was casually pointing at his legs and said, “Don’t point that ‘kin thing at me”.

The Officer opened the rear door of his car and threw the gun on the back seat.

Edited September 26, 2023 by London Best

[GHE]

Scenario 1. Police raid house looking for dangerous criminal. 6 year old child asleep in bed, police shoot her dead. Claims accidental discharge, which is difficult to explain as she was shot twice. No action taken.

Scenario 2. Drunken man holding table leg shot in back by police, dead. Police said that they thought the table leg was a gun. He had a strong Glasgow accent which the police thought was Irish, so he must have been IRA terrorist. No action taken.

Scenario 3. Innocent man wearing summer shirt held down by two officers whilst two other officers shot him 8 times in the head from a few inches away (missed with one shot). Said that he was wearing a padded jacket and could have been concealing a bomb. Officer in charge later promoted to Police Commissioner. Force fined for health & safety breaches, other than that, no action taken.

Scenario 4. Drunken suicidal man at window shot dead by police in house siege, holding shotgun. 67 armed police there with over 100 guns, police said that they returned fire when he shot at them. His gun was in fact empty and no discharged cartridge found. No action taken.

Scenario 5. Man known to be eccentric answered front door in full cowboy dress with two toy guns in holsters. Police shot him dead. No action taken.

Scenario 6. Local criminal (but with no convictions) in possession of illegal firearm. Firearm was wrapped in sock and was in a shoe box in the boot of the car. Police say that they shot him dead after he fired at them. Gun magically appeared a long throw away, had not been fired and had no fingerprints or DNA. No action taken.

10 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

I don't think the law works like that, if an officer, or anyone else for that matter (the law doesn't difientiate between a police officer or a civilian in regard to use of lethal force). Uses lethal force, providing the person using lethal force has an honest held belief that there is an imminent threat to their or someone else's life and their use of force is proportional to that belief of threat, then there actions are lawful, regardless of if that person actually posed a threat or not. Therfore to the best of my limited knowledge, in both of your scenarios 1 and 2, the officer would not necessarily be guilty of murder, it would depend on what he believed and whether his actions were reasonable in the circumstances considering his honestly held belief.

That's fine in theory, but what would have happened if any of us had fired in the situation above? The police investigation would have found that we were in no danger and had cooked up a story to cover our actions.

I'm not knocking the police. I've never been a police officer and I know that I wouldn't have been capable of doing the job. All that I'm asking is that they are treated the same way as everyone else, and in this case, for the first time,  a police officer is being held to account and will be able to offer his defence to a jury. His colleagues should support that, not oppose it.

 

[clangerman]

let’s have the truth they are trying to pressure the system into allowing them to shoot people with no come backs and that’s wrong on every level 

[ditchman]

A very very difficult job..........god knows ..in this day and age we desperatly need them............they all work to rules of engagement...but everyone of us percieve what is a true threat to our lives....

what was the back story of the arrest ?...........anytime the armed police are brought into action....a death should be expected.......

the responsibility of this killing rests squarely with 

1. the force commanding officer
2. the perpertrator./accused

hitting on the armed police i believe is unfair...........they are only a weapon

that is the way i see it.............very difficult choice

[Luckyshot]

9 minutes ago, ditchman said:

A very very difficult job..........god knows ..in this day and age we desperatly need them............they all work to rules of engagement...but everyone of us percieve what is a true threat to our lives....

what was the back story of the arrest ?...........anytime the armed police are brought into action....a death should be expected.......

the responsibility of this killing rests squarely with 

1. the force commanding officer
2. the perpertrator./accused

hitting on the armed police i believe is unfair...........they are only a weapon

that is the way i see it.............very difficult choice

Only realistic comment on this thread and I can’t believe it’s come from ditchman 👍

[GHE]

You think that's realistic?

Really?

[Westley]

3 hours ago, WalkedUp said:

That was my experience when I was in in Chris Kaba’s position for an armed stop. The firearms team were ill disciplined and dangerous, all to do with poor training and poor selection.

I do not see how you're 'armed stop' even remotely compares with Kaba's shooting. Your stop took place in a bloomin field after a report of someone shooting, not after a Police stop on a vehicle reportedly connected to firearms, in the middle of a City, and the driver of the vehicle seemed reluctant to comply with Police Instructions. Your 'incident' which took place near to a City that was suffering from a shooting EVERY day at that time, I feel was totally justified. Those with illegal firearms do not exactly choose a public park to practice the shooting of their weapon, they take a short drive into the urban fringe to do that, which is where I believe, you were. Anyway, someone wearing shorts and Crocs and in possession of a firearm, deserves locking up  🙄

1 hour ago, clangerman said:

let’s have the truth they are trying to pressure the system into allowing them to shoot people with no come backs and that’s wrong on every level 

Some deserve it  !

[12gauge82]

3 hours ago, GHE said:

Scenario 1. Police raid house looking for dangerous criminal. 6 year old child asleep in bed, police shoot her dead. Claims accidental discharge, which is difficult to explain as she was shot twice. No action taken.

Scenario 2. Drunken man holding table leg shot in back by police, dead. Police said that they thought the table leg was a gun. He had a strong Glasgow accent which the police thought was Irish, so he must have been IRA terrorist. No action taken.

Scenario 3. Innocent man wearing summer shirt held down by two officers whilst two other officers shot him 8 times in the head from a few inches away (missed with one shot). Said that he was wearing a padded jacket and could have been concealing a bomb. Officer in charge later promoted to Police Commissioner. Force fined for health & safety breaches, other than that, no action taken.

Scenario 4. Drunken suicidal man at window shot dead by police in house siege, holding shotgun. 67 armed police there with over 100 guns, police said that they returned fire when he shot at them. His gun was in fact empty and no discharged cartridge found. No action taken.

Scenario 5. Man known to be eccentric answered front door in full cowboy dress with two toy guns in holsters. Police shot him dead. No action taken.

Scenario 6. Local criminal (but with no convictions) in possession of illegal firearm. Firearm was wrapped in sock and was in a shoe box in the boot of the car. Police say that they shot him dead after he fired at them. Gun magically appeared a long throw away, had not been fired and had no fingerprints or DNA. No action taken.

That's fine in theory, but what would have happened if any of us had fired in the situation above? The police investigation would have found that we were in no danger and had cooked up a story to cover our actions.

I'm not knocking the police. I've never been a police officer and I know that I wouldn't have been capable of doing the job. All that I'm asking is that they are treated the same way as everyone else, and in this case, for the first time,  a police officer is being held to account and will be able to offer his defence to a jury. His colleagues should support that, not oppose it.

 

I don't know all the cases you mentioned there, but I am aware of some of them as Ive previously taken an interest in them. The ones I read up on were not anywhere near as clear cut as you make out, some being a virtually impossible situation for officers on the ground, the charles de menezes being a good example, the officers on the ground were given what is nearly an exicution order and bravely went onto the train believing they may very well face certain death, if anyone is to blame for that it was police commanders and not the firearms officers themselves. 

Its very easy to be an armchair critic with the luxury of hindsight, but not so easy to do it in reality, with limited information and multiple lives at steak. Without writing on here for hours, they are too complicated to go into, but much of it is in the public domain if you want to read up on it.

And for the most part, when it comes to lethal force, the police are treated the same as everyone else and have to meet the same criteria for proving their actions when using force, in some ways, it could be argued the test is higher as they have received specialist training and would not be expected to over react as much as someone who has no training and is full of adrenaline and fear.