Met Police handing in there Firearms

[welsh1]

1 hour ago, 12gauge82 said:

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.

I have had my say, it is pointless now.

[welsh1]

Here is a scenario for you.

You are a brick commander( in charge of a section of men) and along with another L/Cpl are taking your turn manning a checkpoint in a large military garrison, the alert state is at it's highest as in the last few weeks the IRA have attacked Army camps and placed car bombs at various locations.
It's 1am and a car approches the barrier a single occupant, the L/Cpl is by the barrier to check ID you are set off to one side providing cover, the vehicle as it gets to about 5 foot away suddenly accelerates and smashes the barrier it has gained access to the camp and is speeding away.
You have cocked your SLR placing a live round in the chamber, shouldered your weapon and have the driver in your sights, your finger is on the trigger.

Do you
A. Shoot the driver.
B. Fire a warning shot
C.Not fire your rifle.

And why?

I won't give responses to answers until 21.00 tonight, so there is no process of elimination.

[GHE]

10 minutes ago, welsh1 said:

Here is a scenario for you.

You are a brick commander( in charge of a section of men) and along with another L/Cpl are taking your turn manning a checkpoint in a large military garrison, the alert state is at it's highest as in the last few weeks the IRA have attacked Army camps and placed car bombs at various locations.
It's 1am and a car approches the barrier a single occupant, the L/Cpl is by the barrier to check ID you are set off to one side providing cover, the vehicle as it gets to about 5 foot away suddenly accelerates and smashes the barrier it has gained access to the camp and is speeding away.
You have cocked your SLR placing a live round in the chamber, shouldered your weapon and have the driver in your sights, your finger is on the trigger.

Do you
A. Shoot the driver.
B. Fire a warning shot
C.Not fire your rifle.

And why?

B.

No legal justification for (a) because (at this point) the driver does not present a clear threat.

Firing a warning shot will bring everyone else to immediate readiness.

[udderlyoffroad]

32 minutes ago, GHE said:

Firing a warning shot will bring everyone else to immediate readiness.

Oh dear. 

 

[Yellow Bear]

1 minute ago, udderlyoffroad said:

Oh dear. 

 

I have my popcorn ready

[shaun4860]

Unless I can see clear evidence that the driver has had a medical episode (head/body slumped) then sorry but I’m shooting the driver.

If it’s a car bomb then a warning shot achieves nothing.

You are responsible for the protection, health and wellbeing of everyone on the base.

If it is a suicide bomber then you are the only one stopping him driving into maybe the canteen/admin office and causing multiple deaths.

Not firing isn’t an option 

Probably wrong but I would live with my decision and I will be either a villain or a hero 🤷🏻‍♂️

[GHE]

3 minutes ago, shaun4860 said:

Unless I can see clear evidence that the driver has had a medical episode (head/body slumped) then sorry but I’m shooting the driver.

If it’s a car bomb then a warning shot achieves nothing.

You are responsible for the protection, health and wellbeing of everyone on the base.

If it is a suicide bomber then you are the only one stopping him driving into maybe the canteen/admin office and causing multiple deaths.

Not firing isn’t an option 

Probably wrong but I would live with my decision and I will be either a villain or a hero 🤷🏻‍♂️

The law would say that you're a villain. Look up R v Clegg. https://www.oxbridgenotes.co.uk/law_cases/r-v-clegg#:~:text=The appellant%2C a soldier in,upheld due to excessive force.

 

I thought that the question was very off-topic and also had an obvious answer. Strange though that some people don't seem to  see the obvious.

[12gauge82]

1 hour ago, welsh1 said:

Here is a scenario for you.

You are a brick commander( in charge of a section of men) and along with another L/Cpl are taking your turn manning a checkpoint in a large military garrison, the alert state is at it's highest as in the last few weeks the IRA have attacked Army camps and placed car bombs at various locations.
It's 1am and a car approches the barrier a single occupant, the L/Cpl is by the barrier to check ID you are set off to one side providing cover, the vehicle as it gets to about 5 foot away suddenly accelerates and smashes the barrier it has gained access to the camp and is speeding away.
You have cocked your SLR placing a live round in the chamber, shouldered your weapon and have the driver in your sights, your finger is on the trigger.

Do you
A. Shoot the driver.
B. Fire a warning shot
C.Not fire your rifle.

And why?

I won't give responses to answers until 21.00 tonight, so there is no process of elimination.

So many different ways answers depending on the situation, what's at stake if the car gets through the barrier, who is the driver, does he look elderly and confused, is there any information relating to the vehicle, Intel ect, where on the camp is he driving towards, is there anyone else who could stop him before he could potentially do harm.

The list of what ifs are almost infinite and without being there or being present at a full hearing reviewing the entire case, it would be almost impossible to judge.

[stockybasher]

1 hour ago, welsh1 said:

Here is a scenario for you.

You are a brick commander( in charge of a section of men) and along with another L/Cpl are taking your turn manning a checkpoint in a large military garrison, the alert state is at it's highest as in the last few weeks the IRA have attacked Army camps and placed car bombs at various locations.
It's 1am and a car approches the barrier a single occupant, the L/Cpl is by the barrier to check ID you are set off to one side providing cover, the vehicle as it gets to about 5 foot away suddenly accelerates and smashes the barrier it has gained access to the camp and is speeding away.
You have cocked your SLR placing a live round in the chamber, shouldered your weapon and have the driver in your sights, your finger is on the trigger.

Do you
A. Shoot the driver.
B. Fire a warning shot
C.Not fire your rifle.

And why?

I won't give responses to answers until 21.00 tonight, so there is no process of elimination.

Answer A every time !  Fortunately I have hung up my gear now !  👍  

[Scully]

2 hours 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.

 

Princess Anne’s bodyguard was armed with a self loader if I recall, rather than a revolver. 
If it hadn’t been so potentially serious the entire episode was farcical! 
I’ll start another thread as I don’t want to distract from this one. 

[12gauge82]

1 hour ago, GHE said:

B.

No legal justification for (a) because (at this point) the driver does not present a clear threat.

Firing a warning shot will bring everyone else to immediate readiness.

Not necessarily, what if he was driving at a soldier, what if there was Intel on the specific vehicle there was a bomb on board, what if the camp held nuclear weapons or some other critical asset that if destroyed would do so much haem the individual is deemed to pose an imminent threat?

Like I said in my above post, too many variables for black and white answers

1 minute ago, Scully said:

Princess Anne’s bodyguard was armed with a self loader if I recall, rather than a revolver. 
If it hadn’t been so potentially serious the entire episode was farcical! 
I’ll start another thread as I don’t want to distract from this one. 

Not only that, the female officer in the lee rigby case first pulled teaser before transitioning to glock.

[Rem260]

2 hours 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.

 

Whilst I agree mostly with what you have put. The Army in Afghanistan fired 46,000,000 rounds of small arms ammunition. I wonder how that equates to hitting the target taking away target suppression.

Edited September 27, 2023 by Rem260

[GHE]

9 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Not necessarily, what if he was driving at a soldier, what if there was Intel on the specific vehicle there was a bomb on board, what if the camp held nuclear weapons or some other critical asset that if destroyed would do so much haem the individual is deemed to pose an imminent threat?

Like I said in my above post, too many variables for black and white answers

Not only that, the female officer in the lee rigby case first pulled teaser before transitioning to glock.

No.  R v Clegg is the landmark case on using a firearm whilst claiming self-defence. Everyone knows it - even the police know it - I remember a self-defence case in which someone fired at a van that was being driven at his mother. Whilst the van was endangering her his shots were legally justified, but the police (falsely) claimed that he had fired a further shot while the van was driving away, attempting to escape the scene, which would have made it a Clegg case if true.

This case is very likely to hinge on self-defence, which is probably the only possible defence.

8 minutes ago, Rem260 said:

Whilst I agree mostly with what you have put. The Army in Afghanistan fired 46,000,000 rounds of small arms ammunition. I wonder how that equates to hitting the target taking away target suppression.

Are you sure that wasn't the American army? 😀

Seriously though, my point is that the military can shoot well because they're trained well. The police can't because they aren't.

There was a case a few years ago, a drunken man stood at his front door waving his rifle around. The police shot him, hitting and taking off his trigger finger - very good result all round. I remember the senior officer speaking on TV, saying that the officer took the shot "from a very long distance and ended the very dangerous situation with the minimum possible injury". As always, there was an investigation and it showed that he had fired from a distance of 27 metres, had missed the target by 6.5 metres, the shot had hit a gatepost and the richochet had hit the man's trigger finger. . .

[Centrepin]

28 minutes ago, Rem260 said:

Whilst I agree mostly with what you have put. The Army in Afghanistan fired 46,000,000 rounds of small arms ammunition. I wonder how that equates to hitting the target taking away target suppression.

I do believe that is including rounds fired in training(in theatre).  Generally more rounds fired training than in action. Nothing to do with 1 single deliberately fired round at all.

[12gauge82]

Comparing the police and army is like apples and oranges in most situations.

[shaun4860]

38 minutes ago, GHE said:

There was a case a few years ago, a drunken man stood at his front door waving his rifle around. The police shot him, hitting and taking off his trigger finger - very good result all round. I remember the senior officer speaking on TV, saying that the officer took the shot "from a very long distance and ended the very dangerous situation with the minimum possible injury". As always, there was an investigation and it showed that he had fired from a distance of 27 metres, had missed the target by 6.5 metres, the shot had hit a gatepost and the richochet had hit the man's trigger finger. . .

I think it was an amazing shot!

Knowing the only way you could hit his trigger finger was to ricochet your shot off a gatepost 6.5 meters away from a distance of 27meters takes some spider sense shooting 😇

[welsh1]

5 hours ago, welsh1 said:

Here is a scenario for you.

You are a brick commander( in charge of a section of men) and along with another L/Cpl are taking your turn manning a checkpoint in a large military garrison, the alert state is at it's highest as in the last few weeks the IRA have attacked Army camps and placed car bombs at various locations.
It's 1am and a car approches the barrier a single occupant, the L/Cpl is by the barrier to check ID you are set off to one side providing cover, the vehicle as it gets to about 5 foot away suddenly accelerates and smashes the barrier it has gained access to the camp and is speeding away.
You have cocked your SLR placing a live round in the chamber, shouldered your weapon and have the driver in your sights, your finger is on the trigger.

Do you
A. Shoot the driver.
B. Fire a warning shot
C.Not fire your rifle.

And why?

I won't give responses to answers until 21.00 tonight, so there is no process of elimination.

If you answered C well done you ain't going to jail.

I posted this scenario to show things are not clearcut and decisions taken in a split second under pressure may have life changing consequences, it also shows that people all have different thoughts and answers, a couple of you may well have ended up in prison.

If the driver had been driving at the L/Cpl manning the barrier and his life was in imminent danger then the BC (brick commander) would have justifiably shot the driver, but he did not drive at the L/Cpl he drove through the barrier, and at the split second he was passed the persons and checkpoint he no longer posed an immediate threat to life and if the BC had shot him he would have been guilty of murder.

Fireing a warning shot, no no no that's an N/D you are going to be charged, where might that 7.62 round have ended up?

This was a real situation and i was the BC, in the split second i cocked my rifle and aimed so did the L/Cpl, he had done NI and knew his rules and did not fire, the vehicle in question stopped a few hundred yds up the road, we had called in on the radio and requested the QRF (quick reaction force) we ran toward the vehicle and the driver was asked politely to exit the vehicle, he was very drunk which would explain why he kept falling on the floor hurting his face and body.He was detained and then taken away by the RMP.
It turned out he was an infantry man who while drunk decided to drive back to his camp and then decided "to keep the lads on their toes" by driving through the checkpoint.

I gave a statement to the SIB and had to give a report to the GSM (Garrison Sgt Major), he asked me to pass on his thanks to my brick and congratulated me on "some dam good work", he then said that if i had shot him he would have backed me to the hilt.
The SIB Sgt had told me that if i had shot the idiot then i most probably would have been looking at a murder charge.

I feel for the policeman that has been charged, the adrenaline pumping through you body in any situation like this is immense, things happen very quickly you act automattically, hopefully that training works and you make the right decision, we will only know what went on with that officer when the trial starts.

[GHE]

57 minutes ago, welsh1 said:

If you answered C well done you ain't going to jail.

I posted this scenario to show things are not clearcut and decisions taken in a split second under pressure may have life changing consequences, it also shows that people all have different thoughts and answers, a couple of you may well have ended up in prison.

If the driver had been driving at the L/Cpl manning the barrier and his life was in imminent danger then the BC (brick commander) would have justifiably shot the driver, but he did not drive at the L/Cpl he drove through the barrier, and at the split second he was passed the persons and checkpoint he no longer posed an immediate threat to life and if the BC had shot him he would have been guilty of murder.

Fireing a warning shot, no no no that's an N/D you are going to be charged, where might that 7.62 round have ended up?

This was a real situation and i was the BC, in the split second i cocked my rifle and aimed so did the L/Cpl, he had done NI and knew his rules and did not fire, the vehicle in question stopped a few hundred yds up the road, we had called in on the radio and requested the QRF (quick reaction force) we ran toward the vehicle and the driver was asked politely to exit the vehicle, he was very drunk which would explain why he kept falling on the floor hurting his face and body.He was detained and then taken away by the RMP.
It turned out he was an infantry man who while drunk decided to drive back to his camp and then decided "to keep the lads on their toes" by driving through the checkpoint.

I gave a statement to the SIB and had to give a report to the GSM (Garrison Sgt Major), he asked me to pass on his thanks to my brick and congratulated me on "some dam good work", he then said that if i had shot him he would have backed me to the hilt.
The SIB Sgt had told me that if i had shot the idiot then i most probably would have been looking at a murder charge.

I feel for the policeman that has been charged, the adrenaline pumping through you body in any situation like this is immense, things happen very quickly you act automattically, hopefully that training works and you make the right decision, we will only know what went on with that officer when the trial starts.

As I said, R v Clegg.

My only surprise is that you say that a warning shot would have been regarded as a N/D - is this relatively new? The reason is that I remember my dad telling me about when he was in, local terrorists (or freedom fighters depending on viewpoint) would often try to sneak it, perimeter guards would fire a warning shot and the intruder wouldn't get far. Their Standing Orders were to first fire a white flare for illumination, or a red flare for alarm, but doing so would be suicide so they always fired a warning shot, which was the unofficial accepted response.

[welsh1]

8 minutes ago, GHE said:

As I said, R v Clegg.

My only surprise is that you say that a warning shot would have been regarded as a N/D - is this relatively new? The reason is that I remember my dad telling me about when he was in, local terrorists (or freedom fighters depending on viewpoint) would often try to sneak it, perimeter guards would fire a warning shot and the intruder wouldn't get far. Their Standing Orders were to first fire a white flare for illumination, or a red flare for alarm, but doing so would be suicide so they always fired a warning shot, which was the unofficial accepted response.

Dad's like to tell a good story.
My Dad was also a Soldier, i listened with awe when he and his mates spoke of some of their exploits when i was young,  some were embellished a touch for effect lol.

[welsh1]

I have removed the last two posts from this thread, if the poster wants to argue politics with me then PM me.

And this thread has gone a bit off topic,and yes that is partly my fault, so I will close it, no doubt we will visit the subject again when the trial is underway.