Met Police handing in there Firearms

[12gauge82]

The point is you posted 

The responsibiity of this killing rests squarely with the person that pulled the trigger, it is that person's decision to fire and they know they must justify their actions should they discharge the firearm and kill another.
 

I replied 

Do we know that for sure, as in some instances although individual officers would also need to justify their actions, the largest part of the responsibility could be the commander if certain information is received and they issue certain orders. Take a look at the 'operation cratos' order that was given to the de menezes officers on the ground.

 

And you replied

 

Only one person will be tried in a court of law, that is the person that pulled the trigger, he must justify his or her actions, you can refuse an order if you believe it is wrong.

It's very simple.

Do you see any of the commanders charged in this recent shooting?

Which I've proved is not correct, I'm not trying to be clever, but my point was correct.

 

Just now, welsh1 said:

You cannot charge someone with murder if they did not murder anyone. only the person pulling the trigger can be charged with murder.
 

Incorrect 

If you cause someone else to be murdered you carrying out the act has nothing to do with it

[welsh1]

1 minute ago, 12gauge82 said:

The point is you posted 

The responsibiity of this killing rests squarely with the person that pulled the trigger, it is that person's decision to fire and they know they must justify their actions should they discharge the firearm and kill another.
 

I replied 

Do we know that for sure, as in some instances although individual officers would also need to justify their actions, the largest part of the responsibility could be the commander if certain information is received and they issue certain orders. Take a look at the 'operation cratos' order that was given to the de menezes officers on the ground.

 

And you replied

 

Only one person will be tried in a court of law, that is the person that pulled the trigger, he must justify his or her actions, you can refuse an order if you believe it is wrong.

It's very simple.

Do you see any of the commanders charged in this recent shooting?

Which I've proved is not correct, I'm not trying to be clever, but my point was correct.

 

 

Incorrect 

If you cause someone else to be murdered you carrying out the act has nothing to do with it

If you murder someone you are guilty of murder, if you give a command that leads to someone else murdering someone you are not the murderer, you may be charged for other offences but not murder.
 

[12gauge82]

2 minutes ago, welsh1 said:

If you murder someone you are guilty of murder, if you give a command that leads to someone else murdering someone you are not the murderer, you may be charged for other offences but not murder.
 

I believe you can under joint enterprise but we are staying into different areas now. I stand by my original points but am neither a police officer or a lawyer.

Perhaps someone who is in the police can clarify it as I'm interested. I'm more than happy to be proved wrong if that is the case?

This is slightly off topic, but in answer to your other statement, it shows you can be charged with murder, even if you didn't carry out the actual killing 

https://lifeorknife.west-midlands.police.uk/advice-for-you/what-is-joint-enterprise/

[welsh1]

5 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

I believe you can under joint enterprise but we are staying into different areas now. I stand by my original points but am neither a police officer or a lawyer.

Perhaps someone who is in the police can clarify it as I'm interested. I'm more than happy to be proved wrong if that is the case?

I believe joint enterprise would be where two persons conspire an illegal act and in the course of it one makes it worse, ie they go to burgle a house and in the course of it one of them pulls a knife and kills the householder. At tht point joint enterprise could be used

In the cae of the police which is what we are talking about, the structure they act within is designed to follow rigid protocols and the orders given are set out and cleared at different levels, and the commander will direct, give advice and orders, but the critical point where a trigger is pulled is down to the individual as they have to make that split second decision, and then they alone have to justify their decision.

As the police do not set out to commit an illegal act when they conduct a legal armed operation i think that joint enterprise does not meet the criteria.

I would also be interested in any advice on joint enterprise.

 

[12gauge82]

10 minutes ago, welsh1 said:

I believe joint enterprise would be where two persons conspire an illegal act and in the course of it one makes it worse, ie they go to burgle a house and in the course of it one of them pulls a knife and kills the householder. At tht point joint enterprise could be used

In the cae of the police which is what we are talking about, the structure they act within is designed to follow rigid protocols and the orders given are set out and cleared at different levels, and the commander will direct, give advice and orders, but the critical point where a trigger is pulled is down to the individual as they have to make that split second decision, and then they alone have to justify their decision.

As the police do not set out to commit an illegal act when they conduct a legal armed operation i think that joint enterprise does not meet the criteria.

I would also be interested in any advice on joint enterprise.

 

I have never said that an officer that uses force doesn't have to justify their actions, my point has always been others could also be held accountable for another officers use of lethal force is specific circumstances. Which was counter to your claim only the person pulling the trigger could be held accountable in a court of law, that is incorrect (to the best of my knowledge) and appears to be backed up on the college of policing website regarding a commander that gives the order for critical or conventional shot.

[welsh1]

20 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

I have never said that an officer that uses force doesn't have to justify their actions, my point has always been others could also be held accountable for another officers use of lethal force is specific circumstances. Which was counter to your claim only the person pulling the trigger could be held accountable in a court of law, that is incorrect (to the best of my knowledge) and appears to be backed up on the college of policing website regarding a commander that gives the order for critical or conventional shot.

Again the person pulling the trigger makes the decision to pull the trigger, they are the ones who commit the murder, and i have said others could face charges but not the murder charge. The final decision is always the individual officers.

This is going around in circles now.

[12gauge82]

1 minute ago, welsh1 said:

Again the person pulling the trigger makes the decision to pull the trigger, they are the ones who commit the murder, and i have said others could face charges but not the murder charge. The final decision is always the individual officers.

This is going around in circles now.

That's not what you originally posted, but perhaps that's not what you meant when you posted it, either way it doesn't matter to me, I'm just interested in if my belief is correct or not, I was hoping a police officer on here could confirm or not.

Also I believe the commanding officer could be charged with murder for authorising someone's shooting, despite not pulling the trigger themselves.

[welsh1]

6 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

That's not what you originally posted, but perhaps that's not what you meant when you posted it, either way it doesn't matter to me, I'm just interested in if my belief is correct or not, I was hoping a police officer on here could confirm or not.

Also I believe the commanding officer could be charged with murder for authorising someone's shooting, despite not pulling the trigger themselves.

This is what i said and nothing has changed.It is the individual that makes the final decision.

"The responsibiity of this killing rests squarely with the person that pulled the trigger, it is that person's decision to fire and they know they must justify their actions should they discharge the firearm and kill another.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Lets just go round in CIRCLES for another day or TWO!    

[ditchman]

2 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Lets just go round in CIRCLES for another day or TWO!    

BLIMEy O'RILEY"..

[12gauge82]

24 minutes ago, welsh1 said:

This is what i said and nothing has changed.It is the individual that makes the final decision.

"The responsibiity of this killing rests squarely with the person that pulled the trigger, it is that person's decision to fire and they know they must justify their actions should they discharge the firearm and kill another.

Fair enough, I think you made some other statements that aren't correct but I'll leave it there or this will never end 👍

[shaun4860]

13 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.

 

 

Scenario 7

Man with a grudge against the police phones them up and say he’s been burgled, they agree to send someone round.

2 unarmed female police officers turn up.

Man (Dale Creggan) pulls out a pistol, fired 32 shots in 31 seconds.

One officer dies at the scene, other officer whilst lying on the floor injured goes for her taser, gets shot again, dies later in hospital.

Man goes on the run then handing himself in saying he is responsible for the shootings.

Also says he regrets they were female, he was after male officers.

Scenario 8

Another man shoots and kills ex’s new boyfriend then shoots her in the stomach.

Goes on run.

Shoots unarmed police officer and threatens to shoot more.

Officer later commits suicide after losing his sight after being shot.

The list works both sides.

[12gauge82]

Just thinking back on my discussions on welsh1, what it shows, in my mind anyway, are that police shootings are far from simple events and highlights how difficult it must be for an officer on the ground who is dealing with one of the most stressful situations one could ever face, likely on limited, fragmented or incomplete information and has a fraction of a second to make the biggest decision of their life, with the decision to shoot or not having the likely outcome of death for either the suspect or if they don't take the shot, a member of police or innocent bystander.

Their police force, the iopc, and courts then have years to break that decision down, micro second by micro second at a time and with the benefit of hindsight, with all the information and a full picture where they can critique any flaw, minor or major the officers have made, the impact on that officers life from the investigation could go on for years, even if theyve done nothing wrong.

Unless the officer involved in this shooting is some sort of psychopath who has deliberately set out to kill someone, I can understand why other police officers are up in arms about them being charged with murder, I'm sure no right minded firearms officer gets up in the morning and thinks to themselves, I want to shoot someone this morning.

[welsh1]

Another Soldier dies while being dragged through the courts time and time again for an event 50 years ago.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-63290028

[udderlyoffroad]

3 minutes ago, welsh1 said:

Another Soldier dies while being dragged through the courts time and time again for an event 50 years ago.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-63290028

And?  Murder is murder, nobody above the law, the only person that should be on trial is the one pulling the trigger, they knew what they were signing up for, etc etc.

10 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Just thinking back on my discussions on welsh1, what it shows, in my mind anyway, are that police shootings are far from simple events and highlights how difficult it must be for an officer on the ground who is dealing with one of the most stressful situations one could ever face, likely on limited, fragmented or incomplete information and has a fraction of a second to make the biggest decision of their life, with the decision to shoot or not having the likely outcome of death for either the suspect or if they don't take the shot, a member of police or innocent bystander.

Their police force, the iopc, and courts then have years to break that decision down, micro second by micro second at a time and with the benefit of hindsight, with all the information and a full picture where they can critique any flaw, minor or major the officers have made, the impact on that officers life from the investigation could go on for years, even if theyve done nothing wrong.

Unless the officer involved in this shooting is some sort of psychopath who has deliberately set out to kill someone, I can understand why other police officers are up in arms about them being charged with murder, I'm sure no right minded firearms officer gets up in the morning and thinks to themselves, I want to shoot someone this morning.

Well said.

[Rem260]

16 hours ago, welsh1 said:

You cannot charge someone with murder if they did not murder anyone. only the person pulling the trigger can be charged with murder.
 

Not true there are many cases where a person has been charged and found guilty of murder. When they did not deal the fatal blow. It's called "Joint enterprise "

[welsh1]

35 minutes ago, Rem260 said:

Not true there are many cases where a person has been charged and found guilty of murder. When they did not deal the fatal blow. It's called "Joint enterprise "

If you read on i clarify that i am talking about the police officers situation and why i belive that joint enterprise does not apply in this instance.

[welsh1]

46 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

And?  Murder is murder, nobody above the law, the only person that should be on trial is the one pulling the trigger, they knew what they were signing up for, etc etc.

 

In this instance, there was an inquiry at the time of the incident and no one was charged, years later it was reviewed and the case was dropped, the prosecution service in NI then decided to open the case again, it is widely thought this is politically motivaed by sinn fein.
There is no evidence i believe against soldier B, the weapon used by him was destroyed many years and therefore cannot be matched balistics wise, the prosecution was relying on statements from witnesses, who were/are against the Army in NI.
If you want justice for all then ask why no terrorist is being prosecuted by the NI prosecution service.

How many times should you face prosecution for an offence?

[Rem260]

56 minutes ago, welsh1 said:

If you read on i clarify that i am talking about the police officers situation and why i belive that joint enterprise does not apply in this instance.

Sorry. I didn't see your further post.

[Westley]

1 hour ago, welsh1 said:

If you read on i clarify that i am talking about the police officers situation and why i belive that joint enterprise does not apply in this instance.

IF it did, the entire Firearms Team present at the scene would be on trial.

[Penelope]

On 25/09/2023 at 18:11, shaun4860 said:

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

A Mike Tyson quote, I believe.

[12gauge82]

2 hours ago, welsh1 said:

If you read on i clarify that i am talking about the police officers situation and why i belive that joint enterprise does not apply in this instance.

You did, but I still don't think it's true that only the person pulling the trigger could be charged with murder, hypothetical situation.

A psychopath commander gives the order for a critical shot based on his own fabricated evidence, the officer on the ground caries it out , honestly be living what he's told, the 'suspect' is therefore unlawfully killed

I imagine the result would be commander charged with murder, firearms officer quited.

My scenario is very far fetched but is just an example of the fact not only the person pulling the trigger could in theory be guilty of an offence, even murder.

[GHE]

51 minutes ago, Penelope said:

A Mike Tyson quote, I believe.

From the military mantra "No plan ever survives first contact with the enemy" - which is very true. But good training (in any field) is still vital, and police firearms officers simply don't get the right amount of the right training from the right people.

The armed police officer who was guarding Princess Ann when Ian Ball tried to kidnap her tried to shoot Ball, but his revolver jammed. Lack of training? Not to worry, he was still awarded the George Cross . . .

The police officer who tried to shoot the armed man who murdered Lee Rigby came unstuck too, her Glock 17 Jammed. Lack of training?

Most of the police training involves procedures and protocols, they get very little practical training, i.e. they get very little opportunity to learn how to handle their guns correctly and shoot at targets. By contrast, infantry training is brilliant, with a lot of both blank firing and live firing practice, and, largely because of this, their guns work when they need them to and they can actually hit their targets.

And then there are the trainers. In the military, nearly all of the trainers have actual battlefield experience. In the police, nearly all of the trainers have never actually been fired at themselves, and in turn they were trained by people with similar lack of experience. Yes, a tiny number of the very best ARV officers do get a few days of real-world training by the military, but these are attendance-only courses, no exam and not even a report, so problems with either competence or attitude don't get dealt with.

The police safety procedures and gun handling procedures are hopeless too. Only the police carry guns loaded and in condition zero, which is probably why they have so many negligent discharges. Maybe this killing was due to a negligent discharge, we just don't know - but careless handling and keeping the trigger finger in a dangerous position creates avoidable risk.

And then there's the attitude problem - armed police officers are wrongly taught that they're the best and that they're experts, this would be problem even if it was true.

 

[Centrepin]

3 hours ago, welsh1 said:

Another Soldier dies while being dragged through the courts time and time again for an event 50 years ago.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-63290028

Tony Blair pardoned every IRA murderer and terrorist and invited them to England to celebrate, yet our veterans still live and sleep on the streets.

 

2 hours ago, welsh1 said:

If you want justice for all then ask why no terrorist is being prosecuted by the NI prosecution service.

Politicians lie, cheat, feather their own nest and then become Sir.

8 minutes ago, GHE said:

 

And then there's the attitude problem - armed police officers are wrongly taught that they're the best and that they're experts, this would be problem even if it was true.

 

Having supervised police on an electric target range I can honestly say I've seen Army cadets have less NDs and better handling skills.

[12gauge82]

10 minutes ago, GHE said:

From the military mantra "No plan ever survives first contact with the enemy" - which is very true. But good training (in any field) is still vital, and police firearms officers simply don't get the right amount of the right training from the right people.

The armed police officer who was guarding Princess Ann when Ian Ball tried to kidnap her tried to shoot Ball, but his revolver jammed. Lack of training? Not to worry, he was still awarded the George Cross . . .

The police officer who tried to shoot the armed man who murdered Lee Rigby came unstuck too, her Glock 17 Jammed. Lack of training?

Most of the police training involves procedures and protocols, they get very little practical training, i.e. they get very little opportunity to learn how to handle their guns correctly and shoot at targets. By contrast, infantry training is brilliant, with a lot of both blank firing and live firing practice, and, largely because of this, their guns work when they need them to and they can actually hit their targets.

And then there are the trainers. In the military, nearly all of the trainers have actual battlefield experience. In the police, nearly all of the trainers have never actually been fired at themselves, and in turn they were trained by people with similar lack of experience. Yes, a tiny number of the very best ARV officers do get a few days of real-world training by the military, but these are attendance-only courses, no exam and not even a report, so problems with either competence or attitude don't get dealt with.

The police safety procedures and gun handling procedures are hopeless too. Only the police carry guns loaded and in condition zero, which is probably why they have so many negligent discharges. Maybe this killing was due to a negligent discharge, we just don't know - but careless handling and keeping the trigger finger in a dangerous position creates avoidable risk.

And then there's the attitude problem - armed police officers are wrongly taught that they're the best and that they're experts, this would be problem even if it was true.

 

I don't want more circular discussions so I'm not going into detail on this other than to say some of that is totally wrong.