[Closed] Arm the fuzz now!

I personally think the armed police on Segways is the answer...

If I was your average criminal and a squad of armed police on Segways came charging down the road to the sounds of Ride of the Valkyries, I'd stop what I was doing and ask to have a go.

The idea of cops with guns scares me TBH. I've seen them in town centres at chucking out time shoving people about can't imagine them carrying guns would calm everyone down? Those guys you see at airports with machine guns I thought are just for show aren't they?

Armed police are only as good as the intelligence they are given (no pun intended). If they believe they are looking at a terrorist, who they believe is about to commit an atrocity, then they have to decide whether to shoot or not (as with Jean Charles). On this occasion the intelligence was wrong and an innocent man died. If mistakes can be made at this level, can your average beat bobby be sure his intelligence is right before pulling his/her weapon?

I feel there is greater need for armed units, and the increased deployment of tazers is a fair middle ground (IMO) however, arming constables on a routine basis is just asking for trouble. We don't live in a gun culture, and I'd like it to stay that way.

Harry Stanley. Shot in the back as he walked down the road with a table leg in a bag.

except he wasn't;

[i]Evidence from firearms experts has been heard on this subject and the weight of evidence now supports the officers’ actions as being appropriate in the circumstances. New evidence has also been obtained since the last inquest in October 2004. While some discrepancies remain unexplained, the evidence obtained since the last inquest supports the officers’ version that Mr Stanley was facing towards them when he was shot.[/i]

http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/pr090206_stanley.htm

"Derek Bennett
Shot in the back as he ran away"

and neither was he;

[i]Officers who shot dead a man brandishing a gun-shaped lighter acted lawfully, the High Court has ruled.
Derek Bennett, 29, was hit four times by two marksmen in Brixton, south London, on 16 July 2001. The officers said they thought the gun was real....Mr Bennett died when armed officers opened fire as he grabbed John Knightly, 53, and held the "weapon" to his head. The inquest heard Mr Knightly wriggled free, at which point Mr Bennett turned the novelty lighter on police and tried to take cover behind a pillar as they fired six shots at him. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4677736.stm [/i]

But I do not agree with routine arming of all police officers

Just a very brief glace at that independabt article leaves me with the overiding thought...... "and your point is TJ??"

DAVID LUCKHURST, 46

Publican in Hertfordshire shot in 1993 after he fired rifle at officers in siege at home.

DAVID STONE, 35

Killed in 1993, carrying pistol in north London.

PROSECUTIONS: None

ROBERT DIXON, 45

Wild West fan fired at police, but gun may have been replica.

PROSECUTIONS: None

MICHAEL FITZGERALD, 32

Shot in Bedford in 1998 aiming a replica Colt 45 at police.

PROSECUTIONS: None

ANTONY KITTS, 20

Shot in Falmouth in 1999, threatening police with an air rifle thought to be a shotgun.

PROSECUTIONS: None

KIRK DAVIES, 30

Former soldier was shot in West Yorkshire in September 2000 after he threatened an officer with an air rifle.

PROSECUTION: None

STEVEN DICKSON, 30

Shot in 2001 waving a home-made shotgun in Derbyshire.

PROSECUTION: None

MICHAEL MALSBURY, 62

shot in 2001 running out of his house in Harrow firing at police.

PROSECUTION: None

Personally, if you point a gun or a replica at an armed officer who will be shouting "Armed Police ETC ETC" you can't really expect anything else. sorry but the there it is. Regarding the guy with the Table Leg he had been pretending it was a gun thats hwy the bill had been called. Play with fire and you get burnt.

[img] [/img]

Berm Bandit perfectly reasonable point. Thats just a list of those killed by cops with guns. 'somne are reasonable.

the ones I listred apart from Derek Bennett were clearly "cop shoots unarmed man for no good reason"

Kilo - On Stanley there is no doubt at all that he was shot in the back. Thats where the bullet wounds are. Glossed over in the IPCC report but you don't get shot in the back of the head when you are facing a cop.

The inquests and the IPCC report are badly flawed as alluded to in the IPCC report

While some discrepancies remain unexplained,

He was unarmed and was no threat to the cops at all.

Is that your dream job ton?

Ton doesn't need guns, this is how he would do it.

TJ

Re position of HS, we may never agree on the matter and I am not seeking to carry on an argument over it, everyone is entitled to their point of view.

"He was unarmed and was no threat to the cops at all. "
As I'm sure you understand the fact that one is not armed does not overide the fact that if armed officer [b]honestly believes that it is neccesary to use lethal force [/b]to remove a threat to his life or to others he is entitled under law to do so. If that honestly held belief later turns out to have been mistaken this does not automaticaly render the actions of the officer contrary to law.

Fake guns, metal pipes in bags, lighters etc they can all look like a gun at 20 feet and generate the level of belief required to get one shot. A I said above I am not advocating the issue of firearms to all police. It is a stressful role which needs in depth training and unfortunately when things go wrong the results can be catostrophic for all involved

The inquests and the IPCC report are badly flawed as alluded to in the IPCC report

They wrote a report saying "this report is badly flawed?"

Out of interest TJ, my older brother served a term on the IPCC. He would be the first to say that there are plenty of incidents in the Police where things are not done correctly. However, he would also tell you that the vast majority are. Pretty much the Police force is refelctive of the society it serves, thats flawed and imperfect. What else would you suggest instead?

The table leg guy was a bit of a grey area you must admit. It wasn't clear that he was unarmed until it was too late, surely?

Elfin had better be careful with his new 'hobby' !

If they do get guns don't throw any snowballs!

LOL at Jamie you ar PM of Israel and I claim my £5

Shalom!

Its a pointless argument

As I'm sure you understand the fact that one is not armed does not overide the fact that if armed officer honestly believes that it is neccesary to use lethal force to remove a threat to his life or to others he is entitled under law to do so. If that honestly held belief later turns out to have been mistaken this does not automaticaly render the actions of the officer contrary to law.

Indeed - however that does not alter the fact that they shot dead an unarmed man who was no threat.

Bermbandit - what you link to is the press release not teh actual report. Anyone reading it can clearly see that there are major flaws as alluded to by the line I quote and indeed it does not show what you claim - it only shows that he was no basis for a conviction - not that the officers were exonerated

What else would you suggest instead?

That the mistakes that are shown in these incidents - which have a disturbingly familiar pattern of over eagerness and lack of caution are incorporated into the training of the armed officers and that arming all officers is not a road to go down.

It is a clear failure of training and procedures and perhaps in the vetting and selection of officers that allows these incidents to happen and to keep happening.

Like with medical negligence I would like a no fault investigation of these incidents. Then perhpas the truth would be easier to reach. Again look to the part of bermbandits link about eh collusion in writing up notes.

This makes a great deal of sense.

Learning the lessons

The IPCC is calling for the ACPO Committee on the Police Use of Firearms, in conjunction with the IPCC, to revise the current protocol on how officers write up their accounts of fatal incidents as a matter of urgency.

The decision goes on to say: "The police cannot have it both ways. The IPCC has already made it clear that our investigators will not treat officers who fire fatal shots on duty as suspects unless there is evidence to suggest that a criminal offence may have been committed. If that is the case, it is difficult to see why they should not be treated immediately like any other significant witness, who are not given access to legal advice and permitted to pool their recollections before giving an account. Video recordings of incident de-briefs, which could later be shown if necessary alongside expert advice about the effect of perceptual distortion on the accounts, would provide a credibility with the public that is lacking in the present system."

The IPCC is also calling for further research into how firearms officers should deal with people under the influence of alcohol or drugs or suffering from mental health problems. While it may have made no difference in this case, research has shown they are disproportionately likely to be shot by police. This is because the basic principle of firearms operations, that people will surrender to armed police rather than risk being shot, is less likely to hold true when people are not responding rationally to challenge. This was a recommendation of the report to the Home Secretary by the PCA in 2003 and the IPCC believes that further research should be done in this area.

The IPCC decision also says that "in the adversarial climate in which this case has proceeded, the Stanley family have never had the opportunity to hear directly from the officer about the effect of his fatal action. It may be too late in this case to consider the principles of restorative justice, but we strongly recommend that these be considered at an early stage in future."

Wouldn't disagree with that, but the incorporating into training bit has been done for years. They also draw on experiences of other forces around the world for operational guidance. Unfortunately though the Plod do tend to get blamed for the fact that due to our attitude to mental health there are a lot of nutters wandering the streets without a nurse. Ultimately it will always come down to the fact that if you are behaving erratically and there is a fella there who beleives you to be armed and dangerous a split second decision later you may be dead.

My ex best mate was a firearms officer. I can't tell you how often he got called out, but it was several times a week every week. Eventually he and his team shot someone. It was rock solid stone cold correct and they all received commendations over it. A few years on every single member of that team have left the force, all with alcohol problems and most have left their wives/families/partners. Its too easy to just criticise the Police. They are not all thugs behaving recklessly and with impunity. some may well be, but most aren't.

NB: The case is now used as an example of how not to treat a unit that has been in that situation and the outcomes described are widely seen to tbe the responsibility of the force in question and not the officers concerned.

Bermbandit - thats a part of why I believe it should be no blame investigations

I am sure the guys who shot Stanley regret it and suffer for it. Thats about as clear a mistake as possible. And they clearly lied in the evidence they gave - they should not have been put in that position. Until we get full frank and honest disclose of what happens then we cannot correct the mistakes.

As for the training and learning the lessons - 20 yrs on from the first of these it still happens as in Mohammed Abdul Kaha.

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.

Its clear there is something wrong with the selection and training

More "nonlethal" weaponry might be useful as well.

its to do with overhyped up cops who shoot first and regret later

That's a very bold claim, isn't it?

ton - Member
teej.........give up.
all were conflicting circumstances.

Explain please Ton, if you would, there's a good feller. Ta.

Elfin had better be careful with his new 'hobby' !

I tell you what, I'd better think about making a bullet-proof vest out of plywood or MDF and glue or something, what with these confuddled trigger-happy rozzers. 😯

You never know. You just never know....

fred..............no 8)

molgrips - Member

"its to do with overhyped up cops who shoot first and regret later"

That's a very bold claim, isn't it?

Just look thru the cases I quoted earlier. Its clear thats [b]what[/b] happened. [b]Why[/b] this happens is a different issue that has never been satisfactorily explained. This is why I want no fault incvestigations to try to establish why teh cops acted as they did.

Making references as to what has happened under the current circumstances to argue what will happen if we arm more officers seems irrelevant IMO. Really you should be looking at America.

What we need is a strong sense of community, a big society where we all look out for and police each other. Essential to this will be strong figureheads within the communitites, someone that people look up to, that people know.

i watched minority report last night.

pre crime is what we need...............and some triplets 😀

TandemJeremy - Member

...its to do with overhyped up cops who shoot first and regret later.

Overhyped? Can you imagine the decision making process an armed officer has to go through before pulling the trigger?

Assessing the situation based on what they can see, the prior intelligence they have and the consequences of getting it wrong, all done in a split second?

Get it wrong and you open yourself up to prosecution. Get found guilty and it's not just your job you lose, there's a real possibility of a jail term for manslaughter as well.

Of course, it's very easy to second guess an armed officer from the comfort of your keyboard. It's certainly easier than having to make the decision, and actually pull the trigger, in a situation where there could be a real threat to you, your colleagues or the general public.

Suggesting that it's all down to [i]"overhyped up cops who shoot first and regret later"[/i] simply illustrates how little you understand about the demands on armed officers while, of course, not letting that stop you from offering an opinion on the subject.

Its clear thats what happened

To you maybe, not to others.

May I suggest replacing the phrase

"It's clear that's what happened"

with

"It seems to me that's what happened"

ton - Member
fred..............no

Sorry; I thought for a moment you might have half an idea of what you're talking about.

How silly of me. 🙄

all those who think they were not overhyped just look at what happened in De Mendez and Stanley. Mendez. Restrained on the ground by a policeman. a full magazine pumped into him at point blank range. ,Stanley - shot in the back of the head as he turned round to see why he had been challenged.

Both of these are not the actions of someone behaving rationally. Both atre the actions of someone who has lost all sense of proportion.

Its certainly very obvious to me that they are overhyped and gungho and that this is a result of poor training. They have seen threats were there are none.

Get it wrong and you open yourself up to prosecution. Get found guilty and it's not just your job you lose, there's a real possibility of a jail term for manslaughter as well.

I do think this should be taken out of the equation so we actually get to see what has happened. AS it is the fear of prosecution ( which never actually happens) prevents a real investigation

Assessing the situation based on what they can see, the prior intelligence they have and the consequences of getting it wrong, all done in a split second?

Indeed. However it is clear that something serious keeps going wrong over and over again

Exactly what we don't know because the offices collude (understandably) and falsify evidence.

Shooting unarmed me that are no threat is not acceptable. We need to know why the police act like this so we can take steps to stop it.

I actually feel quite sorry for the cops - they have made a dreadful mistake the consequence of which will follow them all their lives.

I say again - I don't believe its malicious or criminal in any way - but hey are making mistakes because their judgement is clouded by emotion and their training does not account for this. Te4hy should not be acting in fear or panic

De Mendez

de [b][i]Menezes[/i][/b].

Stanley was turning away when he was hit in the head, not turning towards.

Andituk - Member

Stanley 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.

This case is a clear one where we don't get the truth becuse of the4 cops fear of prosecution. Thats clear from the IPPC report.

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Roach ]Colin Roach.[/url]

Both experts decided it was most likely he was hit by the first shot in the hand, then either in a voluntary movement or from the force of the shot, he turned his body, as the second shot hit him.

What was the officer's claims?

Not all the police should be armed until the selection and intelligence criteria are raised .There are some pretty stupid coppers who struggle to find the doughnut shop never mind use a weapon.

if i was pm all the fuzz would carry these.............

[img] [/img]

project - Member
In Israel, all the teenagers go into the army, for a few years, and when traveling usually carry a loaded rifle with them, bit strange to see a gang of very poluite teenagers getting on the bus with loaded rifles, also the bus drivers carry a gun and a lot of town centre bus stops have armed security guards, everyone pays their fare, and there is little shoplifting.

Your correct, we should base our policing strategy on Israel's.

its to do with overhyped up cops who shoot first and regret later

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.