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

[i]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..[/i]

Indeed! Alternatively he may have been an evil bastard who hurt people and was never going to change......so not tragic at all!

41 people shot by the police turned out not to be carrying fire arms in the last 10 years, 15 of which died.
How many of those 41 were brandishing knives or imitation firearms and how many behaved in a way to deliberately mislead the police to believe they were carrying firearms.

How many people have the police shot in total over the past ten years so what percentage of the total is that 41.

Just read that it was something to do with a prison break plan.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35070431

chip, from konabunny's link...

n the 41 cases where targets of police shooting had no firearm, 14 of them were carrying replica guns. No police officer in the heat of confrontation can tell the difference. The same logic applies to the 14 other cases where targets were carrying other weapons - air pistol, gas gun, knife, hatchet. How real is the threat? You have between one and three seconds to decide. Get it wrong, and the wrong person dies.

Of the remaining 13 cases, six were ac cidental discharges (five of those shot being police officers), and the remaining seven are the most disturbing of all.

Of the remaining 13 cases, six were ac cidental discharges (five of those shot being police officers)

'Accidental discharges' - Did you use my cup at brew time? BLAT!

So by my reckoning of that 41 six accidental discharges and that leaves 7 where the policemay have made the wrong call when pulling the trigger.

So that's 13 people shot out of how many thousands of times the police had to actually point there guns at someone with good reason.

I would suggest the armed police get it right far more and wrong far less than they get credit for.

there were 14,864 police firearms’ operations in the year ending March 2014...the police discharged firearms in 2 operations in the year ending March 2014; the figure has been six or less in each of the previous 5 years

On a cursory look, that's the latest published figures for E&W, from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-use-of-firearms-statistics-england-and-wales-financial-year-ending-31-march-2014/police-use-of-firearms-statistics-england-and-wales-financial-year-ending-31-march-2014

Of course not every firearms operation gets to the stage of guns being pointed at people.

That article posted by Konabunny is 14 years old.

Indeed. I quoted from it as I assumed the question above came from it.

totalshell - Member
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..

Whilst I appreciate the sentiment, in some cases, where someone chooses a life less ordinary, you live by the sword and thus die by it. A life lived in violence, especially when chosen, comes with the knowledge that it may well be a short one. I'd say whomever/whatever the person in question has become is [i]more[/i] relevant than any past left willingly behind.

any life lost through violence is a tragedy..

Not really. Sometimes evil people get back what they inflicted on others. Some deaths are a net gain for society.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13215744.Gerbo__the_short__ugly_life_of_a_gangland_enforcer/

in some cases, where someone chooses a life less ordinary, you live by the sword and thus die by it. A life lived in violence, especially when chosen, comes with the knowledge that it may well be a short one.

5 coppers accidentally shot because of NDs in 10 years?!?!?!
WTAF?

civvies eh 😉

Police repatadily shot [b]Jean Charles da Silva e de Menezes[/b] who wasn't the chap they were supposed to watch (pesky skin colour) and gave no warning, then they tried to make up a story about the whole incident and shaft the poor kids family.

[url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes ]Wiki link[/url]

5 police officers shot due to accidental discharges,
5 officers shot by colleagues or did some of them shoot themselves.

Pesky skin colour, really!

5 officers shot by colleagues or did some of them shoot themselves.

Yep, i said "Pesky skin colour"

Some people just see skin colour and let there imagainations fill in the gaps

Jean wasn't the same skin colour or race as the person the police was supposed to follow, but in the limited minds of some, all people with any colour just look the same.

One of those accidental discharges would be the Mark Duggan shooting- one of the officers managed to shoot one of the others. Which inevitably led to initial reports that Duggan had fired on the officers (which the IPCC also inevitably repeated, then took 9 days to correct)

On the plus side, amidst all the other amendments and contradictions in the official versin of events, at least this bit was definitely true: the IPCC said that the officer who fired the fatal shot had "an honest-held belief that he was in imminent danger of him and his colleagues being shot". He didn't say who by...

The shot policeman in the Duggan shooting, I don't think it was an accidental discharge as it passed through duggans arm before lodging in the officers radio..

I believe the de menezes shooting was a massive cock up, especially as de menezes was practically white, and the three men they were staking out were practically black.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-35089944

So in summary some scum were on the way to court to be sentenced for being scum.

Other scum were trying to free the first lot of scum .

One scum got shot and four more scum are in prison .

Good people 1 - Scum 0

Well, tippety-top. So pleased that everything can be cleared up this quickly.

Weird how that eyewitness who said the "scum" charged at the police with a gun seems to have disappeared, isn't it? Almost as if s/he was never there.

Makes you think...

Weird how that eyewitness who said the "scum" charged at the police with a gun seems to have disappeared, isn't it? Almost as if s/he was never there.

Members of the public spouting off to the press or anyone else who'll listen, then subsequently failing to put their money where their mouth is, is all too common unfortunately.

but in the limited minds of some, all people with any colour just look the same.

However there can be some truth to that - as you grow up your brain learns to recognize/distinguish people using certain facial features, so if you haven't been exposed to a lot of different races growing up you might have trouble distinguishing members of that race apart.

Members of the public spouting off to the press or anyone else who'll listen, then subsequently failing to put their money where their mouth is, is all too common unfortunately.

[url= http://news.sky.com/story/1605848/firearms-officer-to-be-suspended-over-shooting ]police shooter suspended[/url]

Used to be standard for the officer in such a case to be suspended pending the investigation.

Was the subject of gallows humour among the guys I knew when they had used up all their leave.

I hoped that would be the case.

Used to be standard for the officer in such a case to be suspended pending the investigation.

The highly unusual move marks an escalation in the IPCC investigation and a spokesman from Scotland Yard told The Telegraph it was "not routine".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/12050452/Police-firearms-officer-suspended-after-fatal-Wood-Green-shooting.html

Members of the public spouting off to the press or anyone else who'll listen, then subsequently failing to put their money where their mouth is, is all too common unfortunately.

I don't know to be honest. There are probably plenty on both sides of the pro/anti police line that want to have their say to the press, who in turn are desperate for material. I tend to wait and read the inquest/investigation findings.

Weird how that eyewitness who said the "scum" charged at the police with a gun seems to have disappeared, isn't it? Almost as if s/he was never there.

Did they also say he jumped a barrier on the underground?

Sometimes witnesses contradict themselves

In the Duggan inquest, Witness A (3rd December) stated that from his flat window over the road he had seen that Duggan had his hands up in the air, and was holding a blackberry when the police shot him.

However it later came out that when earlier interviewed by a BBC journalist (who made shorthand notes) he had said that he initially thought that Duggan was holding a gun, but decided after reading the newspapers that it must have been a blackberry and that when Duggan was shot it 'went flying'.

no blackberry was ever found, but two mobile phones were found, one in his pocket, the other in the minicab, (and neither of them black IIRC)

Not related specifically to this incident, or today's news re the suspension, but also thinking back to the aftermath of the Harry Stanley case, I wonder where we will end up if a police officer is prosecuted or convicted for murder after a momentary mistake? Given that firearms duties are entirely voluntary, how many do we think would carry on doing it if they risk a life sentence for one mistake? Yet at the same time the importance of scrutinising such incidents and the responsibility of police officers to act lawfully can't be overemphasised.

...and sometimes witnesses contradict each other, like Witness B, whose video showed that four police officers' statements were consistent with each other but inconsistent with the truth: http://www.tottenhamjournal.co.uk/news/crime-court/mark_duggan_inquest_coroner_leaves_jury_to_resolve_stark_problem_of_contradictory_police_evidence_1_3103080

See, you've successfully proved than anyone can misremember - even me, because it turns out that it was witness B who said it, and I was wrong in that they did find a blackberry in the car (one of the two phones)

Maybe me and the BBC journalist are both part of the conspiracy too?

Given that firearms duties are entirely voluntary, how many do we think would carry on doing it if they risk a life sentence for one mistake?

Well if the risk of mistakenly killing someone doesn't put them off volunteering perhaps the risk of a jail sentence won't put too many off either?

wonder where we will end up if a police officer is prosecuted or convicted for murder after a momentary mistake?

See, you've successfully proved than anyone can misremember - even me, because it turns out that it was witness B who said it, and I was wrong in that they did find a blackberry in the car (one of the two phones)

It's possible that you're part of the conspiracy. More likely the PR team at the Met Police feels comfortable making up any old shit in the first couple of hours after a dodgy shooting and feeding it to journalists miles away who are desperate to file copy...as they did with de Menezes, Duggan, Tomlinson etc.

Well that's decided later isn't it, after months of scrutiny if the court concludes the killing wasn't done lawfully in self-defence or the defence of someone else, unlike most murders where the person committing them knows at the time that what they're doing isn't lawful.

Well if the risk of mistakenly killing someone doesn't put them off volunteering perhaps the risk of a jail sentence won't put too many off either?

Yes, perhaps not.

wonder where we will end up if a police officer is prosecuted or convicted for murder after a momentary mistake?

Like when 100's of people die because an airline pilot makes a momentary mistake/misjudgement?

Or is that different?

People screw up, & always will. Just hope you don't to any great extent.

Well that's decided later isn't it, after months of scrutiny if the court concludes the killing wasn't done lawfully in self-defence or the defence of someone else, unlike most murders where the person committing them knows at the time that what they're doing isn't lawful.

I think it would be a bit different. A pilot making a mistake wouldn't face a murder charge, unless of course there was some evidence he had crashed his plane deliberately. A firearms officer who in the heat of the moment decides he needs to shoot someone could be convicted of it, if a jury subsequently decided his decision wasn't reasonable.

You're worried about what happens to armed police recruitment if an armed police officer is convicted of murder

A little, yes. After the two officers who shot Harry Stanley were suspended, 20 AFO's immediately stood down, and a further 100 out of the 400 the Met had then we're going to (in the event the suspension was overturned and it didn't get that far). It's not too hard to see something similar happening again is it? If they all decide the risk isn't worth it we could end up with none, or not enough. Who knows? I'm just saying that there's a precedent for AFO's deciding to jack it in if they see someone being, [u]in their eyes[/u], unfairly treated for just trying to do their jobs.

Yes, perhaps not.

I guess it depends what their motives for volunteering for firearms duties are, I assume few consider it to be a risk-free job.

If avoiding all personal risks was an overriding consideration then I would imagine that the police was a poor career choice - perhaps something like kindergarten teacher might be more appropriate?

[img] [/img]

I'll stay where I am thanks ernie 🙂