The Yasser Yaqub case is very different, for one thing Yaqub was armed and moved to point his weapon at an armed officer
I find it shocking that someone on a cycling forum can't comprehend that a car can be used as a weapon. If the eye witness accounts of him ramming police cars are true then he clearly was potentially using it as a weapon.
"I find it shocking that someone on a cycling forum can’t comprehend that a car can be used as a weapon. If the eye witness accounts of him ramming police cars are true then he clearly was potentially using it as a weapon."
+1 this. This is an excellent occasion for the justice system to make it known that cars are incredibly dangerous, and undertaking intimidating/potentially damaging action with them will result in justice (whatever that justice ends up being)
Having been an armed police officer, I have to disagree with your “struggle to see what a machine gun brings to a situation that a Taser doesn’t”
Having been part of an armed robbery (CIT driver, not the criminal!), been involved in potential ones that didn't escalate and having taken part in training exercises with the police I have the utmost respect for the Armed Police Officers and they are absolutely needed as a level above officers with a Taser. The issue is that 99% of the general public will never see anything other than the odd armed patrol for specific events so they don't value what they do. Having seen what they can do and have to do there is no way I would support a reduction in their numbers. Higher levels of training and higher standards to hold a warrant to carry a firearm I have no problem with but there must always be armed officers available for when they are needed most. The current investigation is part of upholding those standards, this needs to be done. As for the officers handing in their firearms warrants I have no idea whether that is justified or not, pretty much none of us do. I'm hoping it's just a case of:
Lots of employees in lots of jobs occasionally down tools in support of a colleague when they don’t know all the facts.
but without being privy to all the information I cannot make an informed comment in that side. What must not happen is it becoming a political football, hopefully the army being stood down is a sign of that not happening.
IMO, anyone who wants to carry is a space cadet, and probably the last person you would want to carry
I think that says more about your perception then. I've met a few armed officers when i was living and working round Gatwick, none of them signed up in the hope of killing someone.
Anyway, I'm not sure the shortage of armed officers is due to this case after all. Theres a lot of them in Cambridge today using some of the uni buildings for a close protection exercise according to MCJnr
Yet Wayne Couzens was selected.
Yes, that was awful - but any selection process is unlikely to be perfect. Harold Shipman, Beverly Allitt and more recently Lucy Letby, demonstrate that some of these people are simply looking to control, injure and ultimately kill other people.
It is impossible to design processes that are 100%$ proof against sociopathy. Whether, you look at the worlds of politics, the military, medicine, policing or teaching.
As a result, I think the current protections against misuse of armed police powers are appropriate.
I remain convinced that a "no fault" investigations is the way to go. We need to find out why these incidents happen. If officers fear criminal prosecution for mistakes then evidence we be slanted and we will never find out so the same mistakes get repeated
this will not be a single issue causing this. Poor briefing, poor recruitment, poor training, wrong temperament etc etc all could play a part. Its seems to me Met police are far too "gung ho" and "us and them" but we just donot know
corporate manslaughter against the MET perhaps - but not criminal action against officers except in very extreme cases where they have acted outside their training and breifing
I have met more than a few armed police officers and regular police officers. Personally and I know it is objective, I have experienced more issues with normal police officers than their armed colleagues.
BTW - never been stopped and acted pleasantly.
I find it shocking that someone on a cycling forum can’t comprehend that a car can be used as a weapon. If the eye witness accounts of him ramming police cars are true then he clearly was potentially using it as a weapon.
Totally misconstrued my earlier point, but don't let get in the way of a good bit of keyboard outrage
IMO, anyone who wants to carry is a space cadet, and probably the last person you would want to carry
I'm guessing you've never met an armed officer? Anyway, how would you select them?
I remain convinced that a “no fault” investigations is the way to go. We need to find out why these incidents happen. If officers fear criminal prosecution for mistakes then evidence we be slanted and we will never find out so the same mistakes get repeated.
What if the mistake is that a coked up psycho with a badge wants to dole out street justice to those he perceives as "wrong uns", does your no fault investigation just move onto lessons learned?
Extreme example of course, but there has to be a point where officers with guns can be held responsible for their actions, we can't just say if it is their job to be armed then any shooting they carry out is justified.
Anyway, how would you select them?
I think the ones in cowboy hats would be more suitable than those in space helmets.
I remain convinced that a “no fault” investigations is the way to go. We need to find out why these incidents happen. If officers fear criminal prosecution for mistakes ... <span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">... but not criminal action against officers except in very extreme cases where they have acted outside their training and breifing</span>
Mistakes yes, but the problem with "no fault investigations" for mistakes is when they find criminal behaviour either they are no longer no-fault or they become inadmissible in court. The charge is Murder. The bar is pretty high to prove murder. If the officer had acted in accordance with their training, or briefing it would be surprising to see that officer charged with murder. Multiple people who have seen the evidence clearly believe a jury should consider if it is Murder.
What if the mistake is that a coked up psycho with a badge wants to dole out street justice to those he perceives as “wrong uns”, does your no fault investigation just move onto lessons learned?
If the officer has acted outside their training deliberatly then yes criminal prosecution. for a mistake? No
A little reminder that this is a live case so we need to be careful with speculations of the incident.
What if the mistake is that a coked up psycho with a badge wants to dole out street justice to those he perceives as “wrong uns”, does your no fault investigation just move onto lessons learned?
Maybe you should have read down to TJs last paragraph where he mentioned that.
What if the mistake is that a coked up psycho with a badge wants to dole out street justice to those he perceives as “wrong uns”, does your no fault investigation just move onto lessons learned?
What an utterly ridiculous comment.
If the officer has acted outside their training deliberatly then yes criminal prosecution. for a mistake? No
And how do you suggest finding that out if the investigation cannot apportion fault where it exists.
Appreciate some of you are fairly ignorant on classifications of weapons, and there's a lot of inaccuracy along with mild hysteria so for the uninitiated:
Pistols - Small, semi-automatic, chambered for low energy ammunition, limited magazine size.
Submachine guns - Small, semi-automatic/burst/automatic, chambered for low energy ammunition, often handgun ammunition, larger magazine capacity.
Rifles - Larger than submachine guns, semi-automatic/burst/automatic, chambered for high energy ammunition, larger magazine capacity. Can be bolt action with larger calibre for specialist tasks (sniper).
Machine guns - Larger than rifles - Use similar calibers to rifles, fully automatic, belt-fed weapons used to suppress, close, kill and destroy the Kings enemies. NOT a weapon of UK Police Forces.
N.B. If I remember correctly, no police weapons have an automatic function. Sub-machine guns and rifles are restricted to burst (usually 3 rounds) and semi-automatic only. @kato, correct me if i'm off base with that, but I'm sure that's what I recall from a while ago.
Details - I guess similar to an NHS investigatory hearing that can change if it uncovers serious wrongdoing. Needs to be worked out for sure and that is a good question. I remain wedded to the principle
And how do you suggest finding that out if the investigation cannot apportion fault where it exists.
Seriously?
IMO, anyone who wants to carry is a space cadet, and probably the last person you would want to carry
Yeah, should totally have voluntold some bods to effect an high-risk entry on a property that may have still had occupants who just blew up a load of kids. Just watch SWAT a couple of times and you're good to go.
Correct UK police don’t use automatic mode.
Well, admittedly from the Evening Standard:
Just before 10pm, residents in Kirkstall Gardens heard a single shot. An anonymous witness later told the Standard: “Armed police jumped out and were shouting at the man, ‘Get out of the car’. It was at least a dozen times. The guy in the car had a lot of opportunities to stop but he refused. He then started driving towards a police car and smashed into it, then reversed, he just wouldn’t stop the vehicle.”
The resident claimed that Mr Kaba “could have killed one of the officers with his car”
Well, admittedly from the Evening Standard:
And completely irrelevant. The Crown Prosecution Service has decided that there is sufficient evidence for a murder charge and that it should be decided by the courts.
Drac
Full Member
A little reminder that this is a live case so we need to be careful with speculations of the incident.
Appreciate some of you are fairly ignorant on classifications of weapons, and there’s a lot of inaccuracy along with mild hysteria so for the uninitiated:
Were you a subscriber to ‘Guns and Ammo’…?😉
you have to assume that the person who shot Chris was in potential danger.
because … ?
TBH, I don’t know what their marksmanship is like, I don’t know what their training is like or when they last had any, I don’t know if they’ve ever had to use a weapon ‘in anger’ before…All of which has a bearing on any incident that they may be involved in.
An ARV AFO has their “marksmanship” tested at least twice per year in that they will have to pass a multi discipline & reactive qualification shoot on moving targets. This is the most basic of standards they have to reach, but don’t be fooled by my wording - it is NOT a basic standard, and is supplemented throughout the year by development shoots. From memory, for the qualification they have no warm up shoot, and have to pass 80% overall with no less than 60% on any one element of the shoot. If they fail, depending on the type of fail, they can either re-take the element (for when they’ve scored over 80% but dropped below 60% on any particular individual element), or register an overall fail and then get a period of remedial training. During this period they are not allowed to carry a firearm operationally.
Each AFO, whether they’re a basic AFO, ARV AFO, SFO, or CT SFO has to complete a minimum hours of contact time of training. This incorporates both development shoots, tactics & enhanced/advanced 1st aid. If you have a specialism such as Close Protection, Rifle Officer etc. you will do a similar amount of training again, over and above your AFO training for this specialism.
I was an ARV AFO (with a few specialisms over the years) for almost 20 years. I would do at least 2 x 12 hr training shifts every 5 weeks. I would do a similar amount for my specialisms.
Every single minute of every day you are scrutinised; from the moment you drew your weapons you were under CCTV. Every drill, whether drawing the weapon from the armoury, function testing or download procedures was done using a Buddy Buddy system where your colleague would watch you like a hawk to ensure you didn’t **** up.
All tactical training contained an element of “judgemental” training, where your decision making was constantly monitored. You had to be able to cite the powers under which you were acting at any time, as training could be stopped mid flow for you to explain your actions. If your decision making wasn’t rock solid then you could have your “ticket” pulled pending a panel, which usually consisted of the head of firearms training, head of department & you. You would have to go through your decision making in great detail under interrogation adhering the National Decision Making (NDM) model. All of this could ultimately lose your authority to carry a firearm, and even disciplinary action.
As statistics show above, it’s highly unlikely that an AFO would’ve used their firearm “in anger”. That said, an AFO is fairly unlikely to use one “in anger” because of training, it the training is generally designed to put AFOs under so much pressure that they cope well operationally.
Contrary to popular stereotypes your ARV AFO is not a knuckle dragger; prior to becoming an AFO they’re usually some of the higher performing PCs at their respective stations. On my shift of 16, 12 of us had decent degrees. Now that was unusual - not that they had degrees, but more the proportion of us; it’s usually about 50%.
Now the Met are somewhat different. They have different threats and a much higher volume of threat to deal with than the rest of us. I cannot comment on how they do things, but most I’ve met have been very professional.
A charge of Murder is a very big deal indeed for a Police officer to be charged with; it suggests malice aforethought… premeditation. I am struggling to see that this officer drew weapons that day & thought “you know what, I’m gonna kill someone today”. My personal thoughts when I heard this were what is the CPS doing? What is their interpretation of this crime and how are they applying/testing this against this incident? And very importantly - How strongly are the IOPC pushing this (I can guarantee very strongly indeed as the political lackeys they are).
Being an AFO is totally voluntary. At the drawing of weapons I was required to make a declaration that I was physically & mentally fit, and not under the influence of any substance. I believe that due to the uncertainty this incident has created, it is not beyond the realms of probability that a few folk are upset & therefore not able to honestly answer that they are emotionally/mentally fit to carry. Some may simply be very militant. I don’t know, but I can hardly blame them.
It I s absolutely right & proper that this incident should be investigated fully. No Police officer is above the law and I do not believe the Police are seriously asking for that. They do however need assurances that the unique pressure & circumstances are held into account & that volunteering to carry a firearm to protect people from armed criminals & terrorists is NOT the same as saying I want to kill someone. It is not part of the premeditation of murder. If I was still in that job I would also decline to carry.
Thanks for that detail @mildred, always good to get an informed perspective rather than the usual hysteria.
Contrary to popular stereotypes your ARV AFO is not a knuckle dragger; prior to becoming an AFO they’re usually some of the higher performing PCs at their respective stations. On my shift of 16, 12 of us had decent degrees. Now that was unusual – not that they had degrees, but more the proportion of us; it’s usually about 50%.
The ones I've met in the course of my duties always seemed like switched on bods. Which is exactly how it bloody well should be.
It’s interesting to read some people saying “well the cps have decided xyz” as if the CPS are infallible. They are just people making decisions too and also sometimes getting it wrong. I wonder how much behind the scenes pressure to make an example of someone or try a test case etc goes on.
It’s interesting to read some people saying “well the cps have decided xyz” as if the CPS are infallible.
The same CPS that where coping serious criticism in the Russell Brand thread? 😂
Some people in here should get a medal for their mental gymnastics and jumping to conclusions.
Interesting to read some people’s feelings on armed officers.
I’m all for armed officers, they’re highly trained and vetted. They put themselves in the way of people wishing to do others harm.
My job and role within it has put me in close contact with armed officers they have all been exclusively professional and I have never seen the responsibility to carry taken lightly.
A few points to keep in mind
We still have a valid terror threat in the uk
We still have lots of people who are not getting the support they should with regards their mental health.
There are still bad people who do not give two f’s about collateral damage
The charge of murder to the best of my knowledge requires the pre-meditated intention (mens rea?)
This officer had a split second to make a shoot/no shoot based on the intel they’d been given. They showed restraint in that only a single shot was discharged. The fact this was a lethal shot shows the officer was calm, and able to perform their duty.
The fact that people are uncomfortable about seeing armed officers shows how disconnected they maybe are with what goes on in the background.
as if the CPS are infallible.
Are sure anyone is saying that the CPS are infallible?
Apparently the CPS believe there is sufficient evidence to justify a murder charge. If there isn't sufficient evidence to justify a murder charge then there won't be a conviction.
Saying the courts should decide, which is what happens under the rule of law, is not the same as saying that the CPS are infallible.
Since a few people have brought up the background to armed policing, and the intense pressure armed police officers have to face, which no doubt is an extremely valid point, it should perhaps be remembered that this is also occuring against a background in which the Metropolitan Police Force is facing its greatest crisis in its 200 year history.
There are very serious discussions currently taking place concerning whether public confidence in the Met has collapsed to the point that the only option left is for its abolition and replacement with a completely new organisation.
I personally believe that much (but definitely not all) of the criticism directly at the Met is overblown by media hysteria. Yes it has some very serious problems but I personally doubt that the Met is as racist, misogynist, and homophobic, as it was 20 or 40 years ago, although it obviously still has a long way to go. And I certainly don't believe that a woman should feel unsafe about approaching a police officer, as many seem to believe.
Anyway it is against this background of public crisis of confidence in the Met which the murder charge decision was made. Would it have been different if there was currently much greater public confidence in the Met? I don't know, but if we are going to talk about pressures, confidence, fears, etc, then the Met's need to have public confidence restored should also be considered.
Author of landmark report says Met can ‘no longer presume that it has the permission of the people of London to police them’
The Metropolitan police is broken and rotten, suffering collapsing public trust and is guilty of institutional racism, misogyny and homophobia, an official report has said.
^^ That report was commissioned by the Met itself.
<span style="color: #000000; font-family: Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, 'Noto Sans', sans-serif, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji'; background-color: #eeeeee;">"This officer had a split second to make a shoot/no shoot based on the intel they’d been given. They showed restraint in that only a single shot was discharged. The fact this was a lethal shot shows the officer was calm, and able to perform their duty"</span>
There's some leaps of faith there as big as the gap jump from by Kade.
*COULD* have decided he (or she) was going to shoot whilst on the way there.
*COULD* have decided half an hour earlier best to only shoot once as half a dozen would demonstrate excessive use
*COULD* have been an unlucky KILL when trying to just maim (yeah I know the 'winging' someone is BS from TV)
Etc.
It’s my personal belief that Ernie pretty much nails it with:
it should perhaps be remembered that this is also occuring against a background in which the Metropolitan Police Force is facing its greatest crisis in its 200 year history.
There is an absolute political will to sort out the Met & bring back public confidence. I don’t know any details but given the negativity already present, now would appear to be a good time to “make an example”.
Here is some detail concerning what they are doing in attempting to regain public confidence in the Met (this is from a week ago) :
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-66842521
More than 1,000 Metropolitan Police officers are currently suspended or on restricted duties, the force has said, as it tries to root out rogue officers.
In the past year 100 officers have been sacked for gross misconduct - up by 66% on the normal rate.
So on average two Met officers a week currently being sacked for gross misconduct. There is clearly a determined will to regain public confidence.
And it should be remembered that it is against this background (from the report commissioned by the Met) :
“Londoners who do not have confidence in the Met outnumber those who do, and these measures have been lower amongst black Londoners for years.
How can a police force function effectively, and to the highest standards, when only a minority of the community has confidence in them?
lol @ believing anything in the Evening Standard that's police-favourable and based on "anonymous bystander" reports. Put that together with the "Jean Charles de Menezes was wearing a bulky jacket and jumped the turnstile" and "Ian Tomlinson had a heart attack and brave officers were pelted with bottles as they tried to save him" bullshit the Met spread.
it suggests malice aforethought… premeditation. I am struggling to see that this officer drew weapons that day & thought “you know what, I’m gonna kill someone today”.
This is an odd statement for someone claiming to be a police officer to make. Murder in E&W does not require "premeditation" in the sense of planning or forward thought. The intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm can be entirely spontaneous.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/homicide-murder-and-manslaughter
Yet Wayne Couzens was selected. Yes, that was awful – but any selection process is unlikely to be perfect. Harold Shipman, Beverly Allitt and more recently Lucy Letby, demonstrate that some of these people are simply looking to control, injure and ultimately kill other people.
It's a total mispresentation of Couzens and the to shrug and say "ahh, well, some sneaky people always slip through the screening net, what are you gonna do?" The Met had numerous opportunities to investigate Couzens and prevent further crimes and murder - and messed them all up through ineptitude and blokeism.
joined the Met from the Civil Nuclear Constabulary in September 2018,[9][10] and in February 2020[11] was assigned to the Parliamentary and Diplomatic Protection (PaDP) branch,[12] the division responsible for uniformed protection of government and diplomatic premises.[13] Couzens had not undergone enhanced vetting as part of his recruitment nor had he gone through the mandatory two-year probation period with the Met before joining the PaDP.[9][14] Couzens's crimes led to a non-statutory inquiry headed by Dame Elish Angiolini into how Couzens could work as a police officer for three separate forces despite his behaviour causing concern.[15]...
not only did Kent Police not take any action after an alleged incident of indecent exposure in 2015,[63] but Couzens had faced at least two other accusations of indecent exposure that had not been properly investigated and he had been involved in an incident in 2002 that was missed in his vetting.[84] In early October 2021, it was reported that Couzens's colleagues had once been forced to call him back to the station from patrol after a prostitute had visited the station demanding money from him.[85] In mid-October, it was reported that police were investigating claims that Couzens had sexually assaulted a drag queen at a pub in Deal in 2018.[86] Radio presenter Emma B also came forward to say that she had attempted to report Couzens in 2008, after he flashed her in an alley in Greenwich, but that the police had laughed at her.[87]...
a former Metropolitan Police officer who was assigned to investigate two counts of indecent exposure committed by Couzens in the days prior to Sarah Everard's murder, was found guilty of gross misconduct for failing to properly investigate the incidents following a disciplinary hearing.[117]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Sarah_Everard
This officer had a split second to make a shoot/no shoot based on the intel they’d been given. They showed restraint in that only a single shot was discharged. The fact this was a lethal shot shows the officer was calm, and able to perform their duty.
Thanks for clearing that up. No need to waste court time on a trial now.
I suppose the idea that the police can shoot us when they feel like it is just an extension of the rule that they can beat us on the head with batons when they feel like it.
I don’t know any details but given the negativity already present, now would appear to be a good time to “make an example”.
Making an example is a truly horrendous concept when it involves charging someone with murder to prove some point
Thanks for clearing that up. No need to waste court time on a trial now.
Which is clearly not what the poster has said.
I suppose the idea that the police can shoot us when they feel like it is just an extension of the rule that they can beat us on the head with batons when they feel like it.
You're on a roll
I think one of the main points of this that has upset so many is that the chap was unarmed.
I understand (from ES reporting) that the victim was just released after a 4 year stretch for firearms offenses and driving a car that was also linked to a recent firearms offense. So while he may have been unarmed, I can also see why the cops would be treating it as if he may be.
