OVERKILL, Police called to Man Carrying an Air Rifle.

[Westley]

17 minutes ago, Rim Fire said:

How in your view dose a man carrying a chair leg in a carry bag  deserves to get shot 

Have you EVER been in that sort of situation   ?

You are provided with as much information, as is possible at the time. IF, that person is known to carry weapons and does not comply with the instructions given to him, then that Officer has to make the decision to shoot or not. YOU are completely unaware of how that situation developed,  as am I.  The fact that it was a chair leg would only have been realised AFTER the shot was taken. Perhaps if he had been carrying a 3 seater Chesterfield under his arm, or in a carrier bag, the outcome would have been different. They could have sat and talked about it. 

Edited Monday at 09:46 by Westley

[Rim Fire]

1 minute ago, Westley said:

person is known to carry weapons and does not comply with the instructions given to him, then that Officer has to make the decision to shoot or not. YOU are completely unaware of how that situation developed,  as am I

As i said if he turns around and sees armed police then go for the carry bag he becomes a threat as he was carrying no gun he probably didn't go for the bag  so the shot was taken on assumption and an innocent man who was going home with a CHAIR leg in a carry bag got shot 

[Westley]

Just now, Rim Fire said:

As i said if he turns around and sees armed police then go for the carry bag he becomes a threat as he was carrying no gun he probably didn't go for the bag  so the shot was taken on assumption and an innocent man who was going home with a CHAIR leg in a carry bag got shot 

MOST shots have to be taken 'on assumption '   OR  are you one of the "wait until you are shot at, to return fire" brigade  ?  WHEN you have put yourself in that position,  maybe, just maybe, I will be inclined to listen.

[12gauge82]

20 minutes ago, Westley said:

NOT just an imminent threat to the Officers own life, but more importantly,  a THREAT to others.

Absolutely, I haven't put the entire definition and everything to do with it or we'll end up miles of topic and days of discussion on the shortcomings of the law. I've tried to stick to the basics of what and why. 

[old'un]

49 minutes ago, bruno22rf said:

Not quite that straight forward, the call handler will ask for a description of the gun that's been seen and are taught to glean as much info as possible. If there is time a firearms experienced call handler will take over the call and get the best description possible, this is then passed on to "Oscar2" senior handler who in turn decides upon what action to take. The performance and result will be investigated in-house (separate team) over the following days to ensure all possible measures were taken to ensure a safe outcome.

pity the above is not put into practice more often.

[12gauge82]

28 minutes ago, Rim Fire said:

How in your view dose a man carrying a chair leg in a carry bag  deserves to get shot 

Your putting words in my mouth. Of course he didn't deserve to be shot. The case was a tragedy. What I said, was the officers actions were justified. 

They acted reasonably along the lines of their honest held belief at the time of their actions. We can't judge people using hindsight they didn't have at the time. 

[Rim Fire]

15 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

We can't judge people using hindsight they didn't have at the time.

We seem to do a lot of that on here i putt nothing in your mouth it was your statement not mine 

 

19 minutes ago, Westley said:

MOST shots have to be taken 'on assumption '   OR  are you one of the "wait until you are shot at, to return fire" brigade  ?  WHEN you have put yourself in that position,  maybe, just maybe, I will be inclined to listen.

So after that remark i assume you are trained to shoot assuming he is a threat then we will find out later brigade then this is the last reply as we are off topic 

Edited Monday at 10:15 by Rim Fire

[bruno22rf]

11 minutes ago, old'un said:

pity the above is not put into practice more often.

AFAIK, it is standard procedure on every call deemed serious enough to despatch officers, all calls are monitored however and random domestic calls ("can you speak to my 6 year old boy as he wont have a bath") are reviewed by a separate team. 

[old'un]

14 minutes ago, bruno22rf said:

AFAIK, it is standard procedure on every call deemed serious enough to despatch officers, all calls are monitored however and random domestic calls ("can you speak to my 6 year old boy as he wont have a bath") are reviewed by a separate team. 

so where did it go wrong with regards pigeon shooters being surrounded by armed police plus helicopter.

I know of instances when armed police have turned up from someone telling them they have seen someone with a gun and that's all they had to go on.

[dessyb]

4 minutes ago, old'un said:

so where did it go wrong with regards pigeon shooters being surrounded by armed police plus helicopter.

I know of instances when armed police have turned up from someone telling them they have seen someone with a gun and that's all they had to go on.

the following happened to my cousin while out pigeon shooting a lady phoned up saying men wearing balaclavas and guns

[12gauge82]

38 minutes ago, Rim Fire said:

We seem to do a lot of that on here i putt nothing in your mouth it was your statement not mine 

 

 

Please quote where I said "he deserved to be shot" 

Obviously you can't because I didn't say it.

In fact quote anything I've said that is factually wrong. You can't because there isn't anything. 

You seem to struggle to understand the complexity of dealing with a situation like a potentially dangerous and/or armed individual and it's not like the movies where everything is black and white. I guess it's a good job your not an armed police officer, you would clearly lack the mental capacity to do the job. 

[Rim Fire]

21 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

potentially

is the key word and i am glad your not an armed officer shoot first ask questions later 

 

22 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

you would clearly lack the mental capacity to do the job

have i insulted you 

[12gauge82]

5 minutes ago, Rim Fire said:

is the key word and i am glad your not an armed officer shoot first ask questions later 

 

have i insulted you 

So your not going to quote where you claim I said Harry Stanley deserverd to be shot then? 

You have now quoted the word potentially and hold that up as some sort of revelation, the thing is, in real life dangerous situations where you or someone else can get shot, you know not on a video game or when shooting at targets, there are all sorts of unknowns or potential dangers, the police and military are humans, they don't have crystal balls or superhuman reflexs, knowledge or vision, all they can do is work with the information and intelligence available to them at the time and deal with whatever life threatening situation they're thrown into, acting lawfully and proportionately to any potential (there's that word again) threats they face and their honest held belief they had at the time. 

I'm glad I haven't got to make those decisions and even more glad that you don't either. 

[Rim Fire]

So have i thrown insults at you no i haven't 

[welsh1]

I shoot round some sensitive sites, refineries etc and i let security know i am there, but anyone can call the police and say they have seen someone with a gun, the police will turn out, i have had the terrorist armed response unit called a few times, i always do as they ask which is usually placing my weapon on the ground and stepping away from it while they then take control of it .I will always comply, they are in a field at night and have a person with a weapon they are going to have adrenaline pumping, why would i want to anything to give them concern that i am a threat?

After the last encounter we shared a flask of tea and had a chat, i showed them my night vision and they showed me theirs, they are only human and doing a very dangerous and stressful job, one that most of the general population could not/would not do.
It's very easy being an armchair lawyer and saying what should happen or what should have been done, but unless you have been in a situation where there is a possibility you could be shot you will never understand the control it takes to think fast and clearly while the adrenaline is pumping, decisions are made in microseconds, which will later have to be justified to a board of enquiry, not joe public who thinks he could do the job.

[Rem260]

Many years ago I was talking to an armed response officer who told me about a incident that they had to deal with. It was to arrest a offender who was known to carry a firearm. They decided to arrest him as he was leaving his residence.  Once he had closed the door they challenged him and he immediately placed his hand/arm behind his back. Then quickly pulled it back out and was arrested. Upon being searched a Pistol was recovered from his waistbelt in the small of his back. He asked the guy why he had put his hand behind his back when challenged and he answered that he had momentarily thought about trying to shoot his way out but then thought better of it.

I asked him why he had not taken the shot and he said " The fear of being prosecuted if I had got it wrong."

I said that I thought he could have been shot and he said that afterwards he had thought long and hard about whether he wanted to stay as an armed officer.

I would hazard a guess on there being many incidents like this but never get reported on.

 

[steve1066]

32 minutes ago, welsh1 said:

I shoot round some sensitive sites, refineries etc and i let security know i am there, but anyone can call the police and say they have seen someone with a gun, the police will turn out, i have had the terrorist armed response unit called a few times, i always do as they ask which is usually placing my weapon on the ground and stepping away from it while they then take control of it .I will always comply, they are in a field at night and have a person with a weapon they are going to have adrenaline pumping, why would i want to anything to give them concern that i am a threat?

After the last encounter we shared a flask of tea and had a chat, i showed them my night vision and they showed me theirs, they are only human and doing a very dangerous and stressful job, one that most of the general population could not/would not do.
It's very easy being an armchair lawyer and saying what should happen or what should have been done, but unless you have been in a situation where there is a possibility you could be shot you will never understand the control it takes to think fast and clearly while the adrenaline is pumping, decisions are made in microseconds, which will later have to be justified to a board of enquiry, not joe public who thinks he could do the job.

Spot on Welsh1

[12gauge82]

3 hours ago, Rim Fire said:

So have i thrown insults at you no i haven't 

I didn't say you had? 

[bruno22rf]

6 hours ago, old'un said:

so where did it go wrong with regards pigeon shooters being surrounded by armed police plus helicopter.

I know of instances when armed police have turned up from someone telling them they have seen someone with a gun and that's all they had to go on.

I'm guessing that would be down to the description given by the witness, if only a vague description is all the Police have to go on then I'm guessing they have to play safe - what would you do if you took such a call?

[old'un]

19 minutes ago, bruno22rf said:

I'm guessing that would be down to the description given by the witness, if only a vague description is all the Police have to go on then I'm guessing they have to play safe - what would you do if you took such a call?

I think that is what I said in the first place..."Its the way it is now, police get a phone call and guns are mentioned, they go in heavy, as we know it even happens out in the sticks."

 

then you replied with……

“Not quite that straight forward, the call handler will ask for a description of the gun that's been seen and are taught to glean as much info as possible. If there is time a firearms experienced call handler will take over the call and get the best description possible, this is then passed on to "Oscar2" senior handler who in turn decides upon what action to take. The performance and result will be investigated in-house (separate team) over the following days to ensure all possible measures were taken to ensure a safe outcome."

Edited Monday at 17:18 by old'un

[ordnance]

17 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

If someone including a police officer or not believers there is an imminent threat to their life, you are allowed to use reasonable force, based on that belief to defend yourself, even if your belief of imminent threat turns out to be wrong. 

If that wasn't the case, you would have to wait to be shot to make sure someone is pointing a real firearm at you and not an imitation before you could open fire, which wouldn't be much good as you'd likely be dead. 

I hope your not in charge of any accountability!

So an officer just has to say that they felt under threat to shoot someone, they could have shot the guy with the air rifle and you would be OK with that 👍

[ordnance]

10 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

Gun in a plastic bag is just as dangerous as one out of a bag, it takes nothing to pull the trigger. 

I wouldn't like to go on a days shooting with you either, you obviously think a loaded gun in a bag can't harm anyone. 

Yeah there would need to be a gun in the bag 🤔

Edited Monday at 18:37 by ordnance

[12gauge82]

53 minutes ago, ordnance said:

So an officer just has to say that they felt under threat to shoot someone, they could have shot the guy with the air rifle and you would be OK with that 👍

No, they need to hold an honest held belief and acted reasonably considering that belief. A jury would decide if their actions were reasonable. 

That also applies to you and I and is good sense, because without that, you would have to wait to be assaulted or killed before you could take any action to defend yourself or someone else, which would be a bit problematic, because where firearms are involved you likely be to dead to. 

[bruno22rf]

1 hour ago, old'un said:

I think that is what I said in the first place..."Its the way it is now, police get a phone call and guns are mentioned, they go in heavy, as we know it even happens out in the sticks."

 

then you replied with……

“Not quite that straight forward, the call handler will ask for a description of the gun that's been seen and are taught to glean as much info as possible. If there is time a firearms experienced call handler will take over the call and get the best description possible, this is then passed on to "Oscar2" senior handler who in turn decides upon what action to take. The performance and result will be investigated in-house (separate team) over the following days to ensure all possible measures were taken to ensure a safe outcome."

Maybe, on the other hand I often shoot in very public places in Milton Keynes and for the last 3 years TVP no longer require you to tell them you are in public with a gun. They must have been called numerous times regarding me but have never sent a unit to question me.

[London Best]

When I got the 4 armed response units plus the helicopter sent after me the 999 caller had stated, “there is someone shooting at the back of my house.” 
Note, not behind my house, but “at the back of my house.” Big difference. Notwithstanding that I was 200 yards away at the other side of a wood. 
I had shot there for ten years.
Some woman who had bought 1/4 of an acre and just moved in and wanted to control what happened on the surrounding 2,000 acres.