[Closed] Police shoot man in London. "Intelligence led operation".

The report is thin on details. It might not even be 'terrorist' related but gang/drugs instead.

I don't much care for the term "intelligence led". The fact that they use makes me believe that a "stupidity led operation" is a real thing, and that someone might get shot during one.

🙂

Everything is terrorist related. Until it turns out it isn't, after all

[b]PANIIIIIIIIIIIIIIC!!!!!!!!!![/b]

I do like that we still get to read your posts before your bedtime, BD 🙂

Coffee on keyboard.

The pedant in me hates the way the police say intelligence when they mean information.

"We've got intelligence that..."

No, you don't. You've got information. What you do with that information demonstrates whether you've got intelligence or not.

[img] /revision/latest?cb=20130618134601[/img]

It's all in the game , yo!

The pedant in me hates the way the police say intelligence when they mean information.

The pedant in me requires that I show the Oxford dictionary of intelligence disagrees with you.

The collection of information of military or political value:

police and intelligence in the same sentence? most plod I know are not the sharpest tools in the box.

It added the operation was not related to terrorism

apparently

Says on the BBC page it wasn't related to terrorism.

I would presume drugs or gang related instead but it's all just guess work until a full statement is released.

The pedant in me requires that I show the Oxford dictionary of intelligence disagrees with you

I disagree with them 😉

bencooper - Member
The pedant in me hates the way the police say intelligence when they mean information.

"We've got intelligence that..."

No, you don't. You've got information. What you do with that information demonstrates whether you've got intelligence or not.

Information is generally unfiltered or unevaluated data, intelligence is the post process of information gathering which intelligently determines whether information should be acted upon.

Intelligence led; we shot someone who was unarmed, we are pretty annoyed as someone told us he had a shooter.

[i]Eyewitnesses say man came running out of house with a gun before police shot him.[/i]

Listen guys I don't think you should be being rude about the police like this, after all, they might shoot you.

operation kestrel

Eyewitnesses say man came running out of house with a gun before police shot him

Yeah, but it was possible that the gun was only a replica or might ven have been unloaded, so the police will still be castigated as MURDERERS by 'certain sections of the community' (of course, if it turns out that the 'eyewitness' was talking bollox, this will all be the polices fault as well)

There should be riots! But its cold out.

Mr Smith, police and intelligence in the same sentence? most plod I know are not the sharpest tools in the box.

That's funny because the photographers I know are all quite clever (just not the ones who thing giving guns to 13 yr old kids for christmas is a good idea)

so the police will still be castigated as MURDERERS by 'certain sections of the community

what, the bit of the community that doesn't like the cops killing folk unnecessarily you mean?

While I'm happy to give the cops the benefit of the doubt every time, the Met especially have shown time and time and time and time again that when it comes to press manipulation, spinning, victim blaming, and when that all fails, just plain 'ole lying through their teeth: when they've ****ed it up...They bow to no one.

whether it's knocking people over in riots, mounting illegal intelligence operations on families of victims, shooting unarmed people, and shooting wholly innocent people, their record isn't stellar...

Perhaps he got mistaken for a Brazilian electrician...

Eyewitnesses say man came running out of house with a gun before police shot him.

all of which is irrelevant.. two weeks before xmas and somewhere a mum has lost a son a kid maybe has lost a dad.. dont matter how bad a person he may have been he was once 6 years old and bright eyed 12 and a cheeky blighter and the apple of someones eye..

any life lost through violence is a tragedy..

[quote=nickc ]

so the police will still be castigated as MURDERERS by 'certain sections of the community

Not a black and white issue - I have the same suspicions as the rest of you about a statement by a witness favourable to the police. However if it does turn out to be true, then I don't have a huge problem with them shooting somebody waving a gun around whether it turns out to be a fake or not. Which is more than can be said for some people, which I presume is what ninfan is alluding to. Whilst you'd be a fool to believe the police story on everything, you'd be equally a fool to condemn them for everything, when the majority of the time they do a good job (and particularly in the case of firearms officers, sometimes a dangerous one).

qui custodiet ipsos custodes

However if it does turn out to be true, then I don't have a huge problem with them shooting somebody waving a gun around whether it turns out to be a fake or not.

Me neither.

However.

The cops mess it up, and when they do, they go to extraordinary lengths to cover it up, blame others, lie, and perjure themselves in efforts to duck responsibility for their actions. I hope this case doesn't turn out to be another.

I suspect that only happens in a tiny minority of cases - the trouble is, they do tend to be high profile ones, and certainly often ones where such cover ups are despicable.

Too true totalshell.

I suspect that only happens in a tiny minority of cases

I'm sure you're right. I've a mate who's a armed cop, and she's never once fired a shot in anger, as she rightly suggests most of the time, the sight of the cops turning up with machine guns and pistols is enough to make most people with half a brain stop whatever is they're doing, and follow "very carefully" every instruction given to them...

She is BTW, the harshest critic I know of the Met and it's reputation...

We ask armed officers to expose themselves to physical danger and serious legal repercussions. In order to avoid the former they are sometimes a bit quick on the trigger and then in order to avoid the consequences of the latter, they resort to covering it up.

I think we should acknowledge the fact that they are sometimes going to screw up and set a legal framework that acknowledges that but balances it with independent investigations and a due care and diligence responsibility on behalf of the officers concerned.

Its good to see we're all chewing on the meat of the incident and not going off on a tangent about language and police behaviour..... 🙄

There is no meat to discuss.

...two weeks before xmas and somewhere a mum has lost a son...

That mum will be under surveillance now, they will be digging/making up anything to discredit her and her family for when she starts asking questions.

Sad state of affairs when this is one of the first things that crosses my mind when the Met are involved.

Gangs and drugs related according to some news ...

Its good to see we're all chewing on the meat of the incident and not going off on a tangent about language and police behaviour...

It's a discussion forum, not a GCSE oral exam. There is nothing wrong with letting the discussion flow in whatever direction people want to take it.

The decision line between shoot/don't shoot in a dynamic situation can be extremely small and very very short time wise.

For example the difference can be a short as a person holding a gun at their side and then bringing it up level to point it. You try holding your hand at your pocket then raising sharply and pointing your finger at someone. i bet you could do that in a lot less than a second. Where an officer maybe was in a no shoot decision position whilst that hand is down, they have the time it takes for the hand to come up and point to reassess the whole situation and maybe change to a shoot decision. That decision taken in less than a second then will get weeks worth of scrutiny by others who weren't there.

I am in no way justifying the actions in this article . . . I wasn't there . . . but I think people just don't realise the factors involved in a firearms incident and make uninformed assumptions.

Good intelligence, good.

[img] [/img]

That decision taken in less than a second then will get weeks worth of scrutiny by others who weren't there.

I don't think anyone dismisses how incredibly pressured that must be. The problem comes when if having got that decision wrong, instead of putting their hands up and admitting it, they often go to extraordinary lengths to cover it up. Hence the widely held public mistrust of firearms incidents that involve the Met.

I don't think anyone dismisses how incredibly pressured that must be. The problem comes when if having got that decision wrong, instead of putting their hands up and admitting it, they often go to extraordinary lengths to cover it up. Hence the widely held public mistrust of firearms incidents that involve the Met.

The problem also comes when the media speculate and look for answers to keep the 24 hour news cycle going - therefore the police get accused of a cover up if they refuse to provide information, just as much as they get accused of a cover up if they say something and it later turns out to have been wrong. Of course this is further fuelled by rent-a-gobs and 'community leaders' jumping up and down accusing the police of heavy handed policing/unlawful use of violence/refusal to engage with the 'community'/racism/murder before any of the facts have been substantiated.

Disappointed to see all the keyboard know it alls second guessing and assuming a mistake and a coverup the minute a report hits the press. I hope you are not the same users who will no doubt jump on the "how did they miss the opportunity...." bandwagon if one day an armed response officer doesn't shoot and there is a different kind of tragedy.

This isn't the 80s and 90s when the Police had less effective training and controls. I met a lot of firearms officers when I worked at a gym near Gatwick. They were all incredibly bright and articulate, and knew the potential outcome every time they went on a call, and took it incredibly responsibly.

Admitedly, this was mainly in a force who had previously got one high profile case disastrously wrong, but they had clearly stepped it up since then and learnt lessons.

Innocent until proven guilty applies to coppers as well as suspects. Unless you are man enough to take on a job with that level of responsibility, not sure you can make the call on those you expect to do it on your behalf.

Disappointed to see all the keyboard know it alls second guessing and assuming a mistake and a coverup the minute a report hits the press.

met a lot of firearms officers when I worked at a gym near Gatwick

The problem also comes when the media speculate and look for answers to keep the 24 hour news cycle going -therefore the police get accused of a cover up if they refuse to provide information

Really? I've never heard or seen any 24 hour news source ever accuse the Police of a cover-up immediately after the event, Have you? Indeed the facts about shootings are often obscured and take months to be fully revealed, often despite the Police's best efforts, and not because of them.

Perhaps he got mistaken for a Brazilian electrician...

Wrong side of the river, innit.

A big problem is that the two investigations that arise from incidents like this are at odds with each other. The first is the criminal investigation into whether an officer or officers committed a crime of any sort. The officers involved are subject to the same legal procedures and protections as anyone else suspected of a crime, which in many cases results in them receiving legal advice not to say anything to investigators, or to give limited information, in order not to incriminate themselves, which is a long established legal right. The second is the investigation which aims to establish exactly what happened and what lessons can be learnt to improve procedures. If that is to be effective it requires everyone involved to tell everything they know. If they are also under investigation as a suspect for a crime then they will often receive legal advice not to do that. How do you get round that without either offering some sort of immunity to police officers who [i]might[/i] turn out to have done something wrong in order to establish exactly what happened, or removing the normal legal protections from police officers that everyone else enjoys, that are well established in the criminal justice system? I don't know what the answer is.