its to do with overhyped up cops who shoot first and regret later
I think the problem is human nature generally. You get armed so you knwo something is going down.you are presented with a situation wher ethe worng decidion may lead to your own death. You have a duty to protect others etc I believe most people would make false positive [ fire first ] mistakes than false negatives as you live with the former and die with the later. I doubt plods are more likely to do this than anyone else but more armed coppers will lead to more false positives
There are much rarer examples of near assinations/murders - de menezes for example. Again the false negative was a blown up train and many deaths though so the "stakes" were high.
Roach seems to be a cse of possible murder from what I have just read but I know nothin about this other than that link
Re Stanley
A lot more to that one than came out at the inquest. He was undoubtedly carrying the chair leg intending it to look like a sawn-off - never openly admitted but his brother clearly knew . He knew the police would challenge him. It was intimated he knew he was terminally ill and it was in effect almost suicide.
He'd done time on several occasions for armed robbery, possession and gbh with intent.
Re De Menezes - that wasn't the police. A different issue (another thread?) perhaps, especially as we approach the Olympics:
[url= http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3263540/SAS-hit-squads-at-UKs-malls.html ]SAS hit squads on UK streets[/url]
Analogue andy
The cops did not know who he was - so past history is not relevant
As for the rest of it? Your sources please? Its a version I have never heard and I have read a bit about the case.
De menezes - it was the police.
[i]The cops did not know who he was - so past history is not relevant[/i]
The police did know who he was. He'd been drinking all day, becoming more and more aggresive and argumentative. After he left his last pub they locked the doors, turned out the lights and called the police to to warn them that he'd left carrying what they suspected was a firearm.
Some of the press reports make out he was an old man who'd had a quiet drink and left quietly to walk home.
Re De Menezes. Again no open sources but plenty of accurate reports like [url= http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article550024.ece ]this one[/url] written at that time
These two at the Mark Saunders (the London Lawyer with the shotgun) shooting too, police or SF?
[img] 
[/img]
Andy - that is not in accordance with the evidence at the inquest or the officers testimony. It ios completely at odds wqith anything published
Have you any sources?
AnalogueAndy - Member
"Again no open sources but plenty of accurate reports like this one written at that time"
Now is it just me or does that article give the impression that the writer was about to come? He's a bit too keen on his gun porn I think and once you add the SAS it's all a bit too much.
[i]He's a bit too keen on his gun porn[/i]
So are the SAS that's was gives them away!
TJ - unlikely ;-)I'll see what I can find in open source.
FWIW I agree there is more harm than good to come from routine arming of response officers.
[i]I'll see what I can find in open source.[/i]
As always, very little. There was a Police Federation magazine interview with one of the officers involved but can't find that on line.
There's reference on another forum to a relative admitting to Surrey Police that it was "suicide by police" but no more (I know, not reliable).
Perhaps most telling is the family reaction at the coroners insistence that his criminal past be disclosed at the first inquest. Also what they said and didn't say in one of the early BBC programmes that first 'investigated' the shooting - they claimed for example that he went to the pub "for a glass of lemonade" when the PM toxicology report said he was 2.5 times the drink drive limit.. They never properly explained why he was carrying a chair leg in a bag. The whole he'd gone wrong to his brothers to repair it idea was never plausible. (Bearing in mind again that this is a bloke who had form and had done time for armed robbery - with what weapon? A sawn off shotgun). Plus as said, he'd been diagnosed with terminal cancer (just undergone an op). Had been drinking and, as I said had frightened the witnesses in the last pub he'd left to the extent that they locked themselves in.
As you must know, in so many cases there's always other factors that are never publicly disclosed. Unlike the De Menezes case, this was no 'police shoot innocent man'.
As I said people should perhaps more worried about the SAS wondering around the streets carrying guns, with different R.O.E, ethos, training and arguably intent etc..
TJ Read this then comment :
[url= http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/stanley_ipcc_decision_feb_06.pdf ]It was them irresponsible fuzz what dun it[/url]
This has been up before, and you couldn't possibly make all the comments you have made about Harry Stanley if you had taken the opportunity to educate yourself on this matter.
Furthermore, could I point you specifically to the section titled learning the lessons, from which I quote here
While it may have made no difference in this case, research has shown that individuals under the influence of alcohol (or drugs, or suffering from mental health problems) are disproportionately likely to be shot by police.
I stick by what I said previously and which you ridculed as Police propaganda. Frankly this Plod bashing really boils my wee, they aren't all angels obviously, and there should be proper investigative process when serious incidents take place, but this constant drone of unfounded critcism really isn't helpful. How about you try moaning about the proliferation of weapons on the street that has led to the need for more armed officers instead?? I'm sure the yardies/albanians/drug dealers/gangs would love to engage in open and honest debate with you on it.
Bermbandit - I suggest you actually try to read what I have posted and stop that knee jerking.
I have read that, commented on it and pointed to various posts.
I have repeatedly said it is a failure of training and possibly selection that leads officers into situations like this that they clearly are not emotionally and mentally prepared for. They should not be making these decisions in a fearful and adrenaline pumped frame of mind.
I support [b]no prosecutions[/b] for the officers so we can actually find out what happens so as to prevent it in future. In this case they clearly colluded and falsified their evidence as the juries in the inquests found.
It is fair to say that the inquest verdicts, now
quashed, could not have come about if the jury had believed those accounts. It is also fair to say that while some discrepancies remain unexplained.....,
There is no direct evidence that their accounts are not an
honestly held recollection of what they thought had happened. In our opinion, however, [b]these detailed and consistent accounts lack credibility[/b]
This means we can never actually find out the truth and until we find the truth of why the officers acted like this then we cannot learn the lessons to prevent it happening again
I actually feel ( as stated above) very sorry for these officers.
Find one post where I indulged in "police bashing"
Many of my family are police, I have worked alongside the police, I have great respect for them but it is clear that in many occasions armed response officers get overhyped up and make wrong decisions as a result - and these decisions result in deaths.
[img] 
[/img]
=TJ?
This is a very brief trawl through your posts on her on the subject and where I have bothered to read up on the cases in question.
1. Harry Stanley.
No he wasn’t and you are deliberately being misleading by leaving out salient points like the fact that the Police who were called had been told he was carrying a sawn off shotgunShot in the back as he walked down the road with a table leg in a bag.
2. Stephen Waldorf
Who survived and whose case is the reason for all the rules around Police firearms to this day. This incident happened 27 years ago so its hardly current news now either. When do you stop trawling up the past? Apparently they were pretty crap at investigating the original ripper going to bring that up next??In his car in a traffic jam - shot with no warning
3. Your reference to the Independent article in support of your argument which prompted this response from me,
when it transpires that a high proportion of those named in the article in support of your argument about Police shooting innocent people recklessly were not entirely innocent apparently.Just a very brief glace at that independabt article leaves me with the overiding thought...... "and your point is TJ??"
4.
In reference to the IPCC report which critcises certain elements of overall Police protocol, but actually exonerates the officers that shot Stanley from blame.The inquests and the IPCC report are badly flawed as alluded to in the IPCC report
5.
There is no evidence to support that statement and in fact it is not what the IPCC report says.And they clearly lied in the evidence they gave”
6.
As stated above the IPCC report specifically refers to research showing that you are incorrect.YOu continue to follow the disinformation line put out by the police tho - its nothing to do with mentally ill folk walking the street. its to do with overhyped up cops who shoot first and regret later.
7.
No it isn’t it supported them read the IPCC reportStanley was turning away when he was hit in the head, not turning towards. Makes him even less of a threat then. Actually we don't know for sure - the independent experts evidence is at odds with the cops.
For the record the IPCC have no relationship with the Police whatsoever, other than to investigate complaints made against them. The commission is made up of people who are recruited onto it for a 3 year term and have a backgorund demonstrating strength of character amongst other attributes. For example my brother was recruited as a result of an extremely difficult and lengthy trial in which he gave evidence and was cross examined for over a month and where he received a judicial commendation as a result. do not make the mistake of thinking they are the stooges of the Police. You will find your police colleagues would beg to differ.
Find one post where I indulged in "police bashing"
This did not take any great length of time to do and wasn't aimed at being exhasutive.
Please point to the "police bashing"
YOu have missed my point by a mile. Take your blinkers off and read what I wrote. YOu keep inventing things I am supposed top have said to suit your agenda.
At no point did I say the police were guilty, at no point did I call for their prosecution. Infact I repeatedly said that the cops should be free from the risk of prosecution. Hardly "police bashing?"
I clearly blamed on several occasions the training and selection
On Stanley the IPCC report states that the officers evidence was not credible
I have repeatedly said it is a failure of training and possibly selection that leads officers into situations like this that they clearly are not emotionally and mentally prepared for. They should not be making these decisions in a fearful and adrenaline pumped frame of mind.
For me, you have lost all credibility with this statement, which illustrates quite clearly that you have never been in a situation even remotely threatening and had to make a decision that could have severe repercussions whatever you do. And when I say repercussions, I mean death (for you and maybe others) or the possibility of prosecution and a jail term.
Maybe you think you can imagine what it's like, but its patently obvious from this statement that, in fact, you have absolutely no idea.
I'm sure this won't stop you from giving us your opinion on the subject for at least another couple of pages though, so please carry on.
Come off it. Shooting someone cos you panicked means you lost control of the situation and of your emotions
Look at De Menezes for a classic example. The cop clearly lost control. He pumped an entire magazine into a man who was being restrained on the ground. Its a common theme in theee incidents. I do not blame the individuals for this.
Still - no one wants to accept a middle position here - which mine is. Not blaming the individuals involved or calling for the cops to be hung but not blindly accepting the propaganda put out by the police side either.
I want to see a solution. To find out why the cops lose control we need honest debrief. While the cops are under threat of prosecution we do not get honest debrief.
On Stanley the IPCC report states that the officers evidence was not credible
Yet again it doesn't. This is the direct quote for the IPCC Decision document.
It is also been alleged that the officers falsified their accounts of the shooting. The IPCC decision says:" We acknowledge that the officers were making their notes in accordance with national procedure which allowed the officers to confer before writing their notes together. There is no evidence to suggest that the post incident protocol in place at the time was not properly followed. Later evidence has introduced the concept of “perceptual distortion” which we fully accept would create real doubts about whether an incident in fact happened the way an officer remembered it after a traumatic event. But it seems to us that the effect of perceptual distortion should be to create a credible degree of inconsistency, rather than an incredible degree of consistency. In our view the process adopted to obtain the accounts, in particular allowing the pooling of recollections, has given rise to the allegation that they were fabricated after the event and in creating such doubt about their version may well have done the officers a disservice.
As set out in the Surrey report, the allegation that the officers falsified their notes requires some intentional or deliberate act; it cannot be deduced solely from discrepancies with other evidence or the incredible consistency to which we have referred, unless there is no reasonable alternative. There are alternative explanations – that the officers shared a mistaken recollection, or that they were substantially correct. "
The IPCC therefore believes that there is no realistic prospect that a police misconduct tribunal would find that either officer had breached the police Code of Conduct.
What it does is raise issues relating to high stress events and memory function afterwards. i.e. learns from the experience. which is entirely right and proper. What it doesn't do is suggest they lied were disingenuous or anything of the sort. On the other hand what you are saying and the way you say it does.
Bermbandit it does.
Direct quote from your link. the IPCC would not make such strong statements without good cause.
We know that in some respects [b]the officers’ accounts are not consistent with other
evidence,[/b] for example, their positions relative to Mr Stanley when he was shot, and it
must be acknowledged that we will never know with certainty what really happened at
that crucial moment. There is no direct evidence that their accounts are not an
honestly held recollection of what they thought had happened. [b]In our opinion,
however, these detailed and consistent accounts lack credibility. We will never know
exactly what was discussed in the post-incident debriefing and making of notes but in
our view the doubts that the accounts have raised about their integrity mean that the
process by which those accounts were given was fundamentally flawed.[/b].
I do not blame the police for this - they would be in a highly stressed environment and they would realise the enormity of the mistake they had made. Being under threat of prosecution as I know from medical ne3gligence leads to people at best putting a favourable slant on their records if not outright falsification.
This is why I want the threat of prosecution taken away from these officers in this situation - so that they will honestly tell what hppened including thier failings.
Come off it. Shooting someone cos you panicked means you lost control of the situation and of your emotions
Where does it say the officer who shot this guy panicked?? I'm certainly not aware of it. My understanding was that the objective was to terminate brain function rapidly so that there would not be either voluntary or involuntary detonation of the device they believed he had carried onto the train. Personally in the circumstances I would have thought that panic would have resulted in running in the opposite direction in.
Lets not pretend that the Police or anyone else are anything other than human, with all that that entails. They will makle mistakes they will recruit some right tits, but that what being human is.
Look at De Menezes for a classic example. The cop clearly lost control. He pumped an entire magazine into a man who was being restrained on the ground.
An entire magazine? With which weapon? As I understood it, Jean Charles De Menenez was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder.
Do you have a source?
The cop clearly lost control. He pumped an entire magazine into a man who was being restrained on the ground.
Also, I can actually think of a very good reason for pumping a whole magazine into someone.
Souhaila Sami Andrawes Sayeh, who was the only surviving terrorist involved in the Mogadishu hijack, was hit with seven 9mm rounds and was still mobile enough to give the V for victory sign as she was stretchered away from the aircraft.
If you had reason to suspect someone was a suicide bomber, a full magazine would be a reasonable response. It only takes the slightest movement to detonate explosives; a full magazine reduces considerably the chances of a terrorist making such a movement.
Regarding Stanley, what the IPPC says is that the process is flawed, not that the officers lied, which is my point, the way you have put it in your earlier post implies that they lied, which is not supported by the evidence as I and the IPCC are saying.
Lets not pretend that the Police or anyone else are anything other than human, with all that that entails. They will make mistakes they will recruit some right tits, but that what being human is.
I quite agree.
Just look at the common thread thru all these incidents. Its cops over reacting for whatever reason. we need to know the reasons so they can be trained in the right way to prevent these mistakes.
BB - can you read? That is clearly what the IPCC reports says
[b]the officers’ accounts are not consistent with other evidence,[/b]
[b]In our opinion, however, these detailed and consistent accounts lack credibility.
[/b]
I do not blame them for this - its almost inevitable in the situation they are in. This is why the threat of prosecution needs to be removed.
i don't really have a view on the Stanley case other than to say I really don't believe the conferring before making statements is appropriate . however the quoted paragraph from the IPCC needs to be placed in context. When they state :-
"As set out in the Surrey report, the allegation that the officers falsified their notes requires some intentional or deliberate act; it cannot be deduced solely from discrepancies with other evidence or the incredible consistency to which we have referred, unless there is no reasonable alternative. There are alternative explanations – that the officers shared a mistaken recollection, or that they were substantially correct. "
The IPCC therefore believes that there is no realistic prospect that a police misconduct tribunal would find that either officer had breached the police Code of Conduct."
The IPCC are discussing wether or not to reccomend a miscondut tibunal. Police officers are judged to the same standard and burden of proof as a criminal trial ie innocent untill proven otherwise no finding against them unless the tribunal is sure i.e. beyond reasonable doubt.
"Look at De Menezes for a classic example. The cop clearly lost control. He pumped an entire magazine into a man who was being restrained on the ground."
The De Menezes case is a really poor and atypical example to use, in either a general debate on arming the police or in the tactics of fire Arms teams . While it is possible to criticise the intelligence the surveillance operation or the failure to stop him elsewhere, can you really criticise the officers who in their minds ( with no choice but to believe) followed an armed suicide bomber under ground and on a crowded tube knowing that at any second the bomb could be detonated and knowing that the sole responsibility to stop the bombing was theirs .
If you accept that the officers believed they were dealing with a suicide bomber then what fault can you find with shooting until all signs of life are extinguished or until the gun is empty.
Had De Menezes been a bomber they would be being celebrated as heroes and I'm sure no one would be questioning whether it was necessary to shoot or suggesting they lost control . The fact that he was not a bomber casts questions on the chain of events that brought armed officers into contact with him with the information that they had, it does not cast any blame on them.
Look at De Menezes for a classic example. The cop clearly lost control. He pumped an entire magazine into a man who was being restrained on the ground.
I'm still interested in where you sourced this information TJ...
Which bit? De Menezes ha;d already been restrained by an unarmed officer that was on the tube train with him
He was shot 7 times by one man IIRC - iss that not a full magazine? I thought it was a handgun. I don't know the details of guns n stuff
For the armed cop to do this certainly looks like he lost control to me. I cannot think of any other plausible explanation.
From wiki it would appear that the cop that restrained him was armed as well.
I don't really think there is any doubt he was restrained before he was shot.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1496382/Shot-Brazilian-did-not-jump-barrier-and-run.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4157892.stm
CO19, the police firearms unit that were involved in the Jean Charles de Menendez shooting, carry the Glock 17 semi-automatic pistol. The Glock 17 has 17-round magazine. The armed officer shot de Menendez eight times, so he still had 9 rounds in the magazine.
With a seventeen round capacity, eight rounds hardly constitutes [b][i]"pumping an entire magazine into a man"[/i][/b] does it?
It seems more likely that the officer continued firing until he was satisfied that someone who he had been led to believe was a potential suicide bomber was no further threat to him, his colleagues or the general public.
Hardly the actions of someone who'd [b][i]"lost control"[/i][/b] is it? Surely, if he'd lost control as you claim, he'd have discharged the full 17 rounds he had in the magazine.
I don't really think there is any doubt he was restrained before he was shot.
And so what if he was? Restraining a suicide bomber (which the intelligence available to the armed officers at the time indicated that this is what they were dealing with) doesn't always eliminate the threat.
For me, the armed officer acted in accordance with his training, after accurately accessing the likely threat based on the (admittedly wrong) intelligence he'd been given.
So, in this case, I'd say the officer dealt with the situation in a controlled manner, which would indicate that his training was effective.
You seemed to have based your opinion that the officer was [b][i]"overhyped"[/i][/b] or had [b][i]"lost control"[/i][/b] on your assumption that he'd fired a full magazine into de Menendez. As he didn't, I assume you will now reconsider your opinion, or will you?
It was the chain of command that failed Jean Charles de Menendez, not the officer who pulled the trigger.
It was the chain of command that failed Jean Charles de Menendez, not the officer who pulled the trigger
[b]I have never sought to blame the officers [/b]- I have said it many times. Please stop putting word in my mouth.
If he acted in accordance with his training then his training was wrong.
DE MENEZES EAS ALREADY RESTRAINED - HE POSED NO CREDIBLE THREAT.
Half a masgazine or a whole one - it this is not rational actions.
Hardly the actions of someone who'd "lost control" is it?
Agreed he killed him with cold calculating ruthless efficiency of a highly trained police operative killing an innocent man
So, in this case, I'd say the officer dealt with the situation in a controlled manner, which would indicate that his training was effective.
wel in killing suspects it was great but in only killing guilty people it was a HUGE fail.
More armed coppers would mean more inncoent peole killed and more coppers
DE MENEZES EAS ALREADY RESTRAINED - HE POSED NO CREDIBLE THREAT.
You don't know that. In the case of suicide bombers "restrained" doesn't necessarily mean "threat eliminated", because there are 101 ways for a suicide bomber to detonate a bomb.
A dead suicide bomber definitely can't trigger a bomb and, with a dead suicide bomber it's far easier to check, in the limited time available, for the timing device that is often used just in case the suicide bomber has second thoughts before detonation.
Because of this you can't possibly know that "even if de Menendez had a bomb, shooting him was not needed."
As for your other point...
On one hand you say you've never blamed the officers, yet on the other you say "...the cop clearly lost control. He pumped an entire magazine into a man who was being restrained on the ground."
That sounds quite critical on your part, even if you came to this conclusion based on your inaccurate assumption (despite it being very easy to check) that a Glock 17 magazine only holds eight rounds.
And on that note, I'm out...
A dead suicide bomber definitely can't trigger a bomb
dead mans handle
Agreed he killed him with cold calculating ruthless efficiency of a highly trained police operative killing an innocent man
This is completely correct. The chain of command failed de Menendez and the officer involved because intelligence indicated, incorrectly, that de Menendez was a terrorist when, quite clearly, he wasn't. The officer did his job based on the information given to him.
More armed coppers would mean more inncoent peole killed and more coppers
I also agree with this, too.
On one hand you say you've never blamed the officers, yet on the other you say "...the cop clearly lost control. He pumped an entire magazine into a man who was being restrained on the ground."
Yes. I do not blame the officer on the ground for his actions at that time because of all the failings that led up to that point. He is no more or no less culpable than many others and As i have repeatedly said I feel sorry for him.
wheelz - Member
"You don't know that. In the case of suicide bombers "restrained" doesn't necessarily mean "threat eliminated", because there are 101 ways for a suicide bomber to detonate a bomb."
The problem with the de Menezes case is that he had ample opportunity to set off a bomb (if he'd had one) in crowded areas and before being shot, but didn't. If he'd been a bomber he most likely would have succeeded. So the "preventing a bombing" argument is pretty weak there.
i see your point whelz but as above he was already in a public place being chased by armed police he was willing to die. Exactly what was he waiting for then to trigger the bomb?
Your defence if the copper seems dangerously close to assuming they are just automatons obeying orders and they can therefore never be held accountable for their action in squeezing the trigger.
Your defence if the copper seems dangerously close to assuming they are just automatons obeying orders and they can therefore never be held accountable for their action in squeezing the trigger.
The Police should always be accountable, especially where firearms are deployed and used.
In the case in point the intelligence was wrong, but the officer acted on that intelligence in good faith.
True, there may have been ample opportunity for a bomb to be detonated had there been one, but there's no such thing as an experienced suicide bomber and people do strange things when they are put under pressure, more so when they're about to blow themselves to paradise I suspect.
At the end of the day, all shootings by the Police should continue to be investigated, not just to ensure that the rules were followed but also, like TJ said, to see if there are new lessons to be learnt.
It's these investigations that will ensure that the police don't simply become automatons but remain accountable for their actions.
On another note, I wonder how many officers who do actually pull the trigger and kill someone leave CO19, or even the Police, not long afterwards?