Armed police

bit crap in winter when everyone is bundled up and so on.

Or inside a car!

I assume that some of these guys that are handing in their weapons know a little more about what happened than we do.

They’ll certainly know rumours or speculation, whereas we only have media reports.

I would imagine that they have decided that the risk to their own liberty now outweighs the extra cash/job satisfaction that they gained from being part of the armed units.

I’m not sure its quite as simple as that.  There’s always been a risk that if they illegally discharged a firearm that they could be prosecuted (just as battering someone in the cells could get you jailed). But armed response officers have traditionally stuck very closely together and senior officers have supported the split second life or death decision position.  Presumably they are not so much worried that if they murder someone they might be prosecuted, but concerned that their colleagues and superiors aren’t going to cover up mistakes the way they may have in the past.

Not sure why this would make them the ‘least appropriate’ types to be armed in the first place. Quite a reasoned response IMO.

I’m not sure I agree.  I think if you were carrying a gun last week in the belief that the system would always protect you, and this week are saying you can’t risk it when no law or rule has changed you certainly give the impression that perhaps you were hovering too close to the boundaries  of the law/rules.

@Kato – I’m just assuming that, as the CPS doesn’t follow a similar process for every shooting, something makes this one different. I don’t expect to know all of the details of why, possibly even after any court case. I’d be surprised if all of those handing in their weapons were fully informed.

Compared to other G7 countries, the UK has the lowest number of reported fatal incidences between suspected criminals and the police. Most police here prefer to be seen as guardians of the people and not criminal hunters.

The selection process is very high

Yet Wayne Couzens was selected.

Which simply suggests that the selection process is not infallible, not that it isn’t highly effective and vastly superior than that of many other countries.

It was something like 100 officers out of 3,000 IIRC?

Not likely to affect operational coverage as much as reporting is inferring anyway?

It was something like 100 officers out of 3,000 IIRC?

I believe that it is about a 100 out of over 6,000 officers.

Edit: They are probably mostly in the Met which I guess might have a disproportionate effect, although I suspect not huge.

The selection process is very high
Yet Wayne Couzens was selected.

But nobody said it was perfect or couldn’t be improved

@MSP.  Everyone AFO knows what needs to be justified.  The handing of tickets in isn’t to force anything at all.  What we’re talking about here is a charge of murder.  Which means the CPS are saying the officer had the mens rea.   That’s why they don’t want to carry, because it means any police shooting will go down that road of premeditation.  I’d have done the same if I were still there.  Got a family to think of and don’t get paid any more for the risk.

It doesn’t mean any police shooting will go to a prosecution, it means that any police shooting which doesn’t look to have met the correct threshold will be properly examined by the justice system.

I think their are times where the police (and other public services) need extra protection, but there are also times where accountability needs to be transparent and maybe even held to a higher standard than joe blogs.

What we’re talking about here is a charge of murder. Which means the CPS are saying the officer had the mens rea.

rea?

Pre-mediation – not the same as the French cop then https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66040464

It is the Met though. Nothing surprises me about that institution, sadly.

Hasn’t the MET asked the army (SAS) for help replacing armed officers? Which doesn’t fill me with joy really, weren’t the Jean Charles de Menezes shooters rumoured to be army (special forces?)

Which doesn’t fill me with joy really, weren’t the Jean Charles de Menezes shooters rumoured to be army (special forces?)

Not for normal policing duties I believe, for armed protection such as Downing Street. Although only if really need which apparently isn’t the case currently.

Ernie is right, they will do protection work.  And it won’t be the SAS.  I remember the last time they used the army as I was there.  We got the stable hands from the horse artillery that hadn’t picked up a weapon since basic.  I asked one not to point their rifle at me, but was told “it’s okay mate it’s not loaded”.  MACA is not a good situation to be in and I hope they don’t need it

Any shooting needs to be examined. We all have the right to use lethal force for self defence if we believed at that moment it is reasonable to do so, it’s how far you extend the “benefit of the doubt” to a Police officer protecting “us”.

As a general point, i feel we either run the risk of the Police mistakenly killing someone and find a fair system to deal with “professional errors” as we do with surgeons, or we accept there won’t be armed officers and innocent people will die if unarmed officers can’t stop them. Everyone’s view of that balance will differ.

No point speculating on this case as we haven’t the necessary information. The fact that they were charged suggests normal regs weren’t followed, or the threshold has been changed, which should only have happened after consultation and I can see why a few officers may not want that responsibility with less legal support available.

As a general point, i feel we either run the risk of the Police mistakenly killing someone and find a fair system to deal with “professional errors” as we do with surgeons, or we accept there won’t be armed officers and innocent people will die if unarmed officers can’t stop them. Everyone’s view of that balance will differ.

Indeed. Has done wonders for aviation.

Ernie is right, they will do protection work.  And it won’t be the SAS.

The Guardian link suggests it’s for counter-terrorism and specifically says the SAS?

From the article: “The Guardian understands that the Met asked for soldiers from the SAS to be put on standby for deployment against terrorist suspects”

I suspect specialist units are on permanent standby for terrorist incidents, the press are milking this for clickbait headlines

It’s a more nuanced debate perhaps than is the officers “downing tools” are presenting it as. There is a need for Armed response units to be available as part of the UK’s various police forces. However There’s also a need for accountability/responsibility to be part of normal operational procedures. Part of the problem is the culture of impunity that some officers apparently feel they operate under, this ultimately undermines public trust.

Someone who might have to discharge a weapon as part of their duties, needs to be prepared for the consequences, at the same time they shouldn’t be held up in their response to a literal ‘life or death’ situation. It’s far easier to discuss these things in the abstract, than make the real world split second decisions resulting in someone’s injury or death.

Ultimately officers who aren’t fully prepared for the responsibility/accountability that goes with wielding firearms in public, probably shouldn’t sign up for an armed response unit.

I don’t personally want us to end up with a culture like the states where more/all officers are routinely armed and wrongful shooting incidents are common, under-prosecuted and sadly just accepted by the majority. Firearms are the exception not the rule here, and their use needs to come with appropriate governance and post event reviewing/investigation (and where appropriate prosecution) to ensure British police develop and maintain a “proportionate use” culture with firearms.

the press are milking this

Yeah, probably, If I’m honest, I’d rather have cops do armed cop things and the army stick to army things. 👍

@nickc I can only tell you my experience from actually doing it.   The papers are ramping it up, but the SAS have more important things to do.   If they do use MACA the soldiers will back fill the less important AFO roles, the CT and ARV stuff will be prioritised by the Police.

The Guardian link suggests it’s for counter-terrorism and specifically says the SAS?

There is a hierarchy of operational activities that can be undertaken depending on training, some activities are just not doable by armed officers who normally guard buildings. So it is possible that the small number of officers who have stopped working may have a disproportionate operational impact which needs to be mitigated.
Then again it could all be cobblers put out to stir the pot

SRR might be more likely too.

Yeah, probably, If I’m honest, I’d rather have cops do armed cop things and the army stick to army things.

I actually probably lean the other way when it comes to armed protection of sites such as Downing Street.

Is there any reason why the army shouldn’t be used? After all they are associated with using weapons far more than the police generally are, certainly in the UK, and they are used to protect such places as Buckingham Palace.

After all they are associated with using weapons far more than the police generally are, certainly in the UK, and they are used to protect such places as Buckingham Palace.

I suspect squaddies have far less training on the appropriate use of weapons on the streets than armed police do. There are armed police at the palace as well as the army.

and they are used to protect such places as Buckingham Palace.

They arent. Police are used as the primary protection for those locations. The military are primarily ceremonial.

Hasn’t the MET…

There’s always someone who capitalises Met as if it were a three letter acronym. Which means I spend the rest of the thread mentally pronouncing it as a TLA like in that LOD show on the BBC.

There are armed police at the palace as well as the army.

Well yes that’s the point, I would generally prefer to see police officers engaged in policing rather than protection work. Especially as the Met doesn’t exactly have an excess number of trained police officers to engage in police work.

I don’t know how many sites the army currently protects but I assume that it is a fair few. Are there problems associated with army protecting these sites? And would armed police resolve these issues?

Really interesting one this. I understand the parallels to Yassar. He (a known drug dealer) was in a car known to be carrying a loaded gun. He reached for it and was shot. An open and shut case imo.

We dont know the details of Chris Kaba but i can see someone is driving a car known to be used in an armed incident. We dont know what intelligence they have but had to chase him down for a start.

I believe that in a way its good to have the armed police like this. They should be known that every incident will be investigated but you have to assume that the person who shot Chris was in potential danger. They shouldn’t be above the law but they should be protected from it and instances like this imo. The police, never mind the armed police, put their lives on the line for the rest of us. The officer now has a year or more of trauma ahead and all the impacts on their lives. Im not surprised their colleagues are downing tools.

I actually probably lean the other way when it comes to armed protection of sites such as Downing Street

Even assuming their close-range marksmanship (with sidearms/sub-machine guns) was of the same standard I imagine most incidents at Downing Street are probably mental health or protest related and I’d assume the armed police are trained to recognise that and how to de-escalate such situations. That’s not really what a squaddie is trained for.

and they are used to protect such places as Buckingham Palace.

They arent.

I based my comment on someone who formerly guarded Buckingham Palace (many years ago) and he assured that whilst it wasn’t publicized they were indeed armed with live rounds.

But either way the army does provide armed protection for crown property, if not all, so my point remains the same.

Edit: A Google search suggests that whilst the guards in Buckingham Palace weapons do not routinely have live ammo they do when there is a known security threat, and the ammo is also always very close by so that live rounds can be quickly accessed.

I imagine most incidents at Downing Street are probably mental health or protest related

Are there ever any incidents in Downing Street? When I was a kid anyone could drive past Number 10 and the only “protection” there was was one solitary unarmed copper standing in front of the front door.

Has a firearm ever been discharged in Downing Street? I can’t recall any incidents.

Has a firearm ever been discharged in Downing Street? I can’t recall any incidents.

There was the small matter of an IRA mortar attack in 1991.

Some Background….

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/chris-kaba-inside-story-shooting-london-streatham-hill-police-met-b1027691.html

Some Background…. Press reporting

The CPS have the foorage and radio details. Everything else is, at best, informed guessing.

In the US there is a principle of “qualified immunity” that seems to make it very hard to their police to be prosecuted for, well, anything. When a populist and authoritarian home secretary (though all home secretaries seem to be authoritarian) starts making comments about changing the oversight applied to the police I get a bit worried.

There was the small matter of an IRA mortar attack in 1991.

That was quite a big matter but I don’t think any Downing Street police officers fired their weapons in that incident. The IRA weren’t even in Downing Street as far as I can recall!

If “most incidents at Downing Street are probably mental health or protest related” they are unlikely to require an armed response.

It is the sheer quantity of armed officers protecting Number 10 which amazes me. A couple of years back I was cycling past every day on my commute and I always felt it was such a waste of precious police resources to see so many highly armed, and very bored looking, coppers guarding one person.

I always felt it was such a waste of precious police resources to see so many highly armed, and very bored looking, coppers guarding one person.

I had no idea it was solitary confinement – no wonder they all go mad

I’m surprised that a murder charge, from what little I know its incredibly difficult to shoot accurately through glass as the impact of hitting the glass deflects the trajectory. By how much I have no idea.

The part Im mot keen on is that the rest of the country has to be left more exposed to backfill in London. Why should the rest of the country have to loose its armed officers, which presumably are in proportion to the anticipated threat in different parts of the country, because of a decision in London.

Interesting that the statistics only cover incidents when a firearm is intentionally discharged, there are a lot more ‘accidental’ discharges, on average 20 a year……………

https://inews.co.uk/news/armed-police-uk-accidentally-fired-weapons-five-years-data-421308

I’m surprised no-one has mentioned the abysmal morale in the Met due to Tory austerity, their own misconduct in covering up the actions of sexual predators and the deranged in their own ranks, and a collapse in public confidence in London.

I find it hard to believe there would ever be a long term shortage of volunteers for these roles.

If you’re the Police marksman you have to make a quick decision to shoot or not.

They are saying that if you are going to hold them to account in the same way as the general public, then its not a responsibility they want to take. Hence with this case a lot of them are walking away from the job.

You have to accept in these high pressure environments, its impossible to be correct 100% of the time, so they need to be given special dispensation.

You know who else needs to make quick life or death decisions? Doctors. Nurses. Surgeons. Pilots. Ships’ captains. Bouncers. Firefighters… There’s no reason to invent special criminal procedures for police officers. If a prosecutor decides to prosecute, the court will have the opportunity to hear the context and decide whether what the accused did was reasonable.

In the US there is a principle of “qualified immunity” that seems to make it very hard to their police to be prosecuted for, well, anything. 

Qualified immunity isn’t anything to do with prosecution. It’s about whether individual officers can be held liable in civil cases for their own unconstitutional conduct.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity

The part Im mot keen on is that the rest of the country has to be left more exposed to backfill in London. Why should the rest of the country have to loose its armed officers, which presumably are in proportion to the anticipated threat in different parts of the country, because of a decision in London.

Because cockneys are all gangsters (who love their mothers)

MSP
Full Member
I think the troubling thing here isn’t that there are armed police units, but that a proportion of those that man those units want to force the justice system to turn a blind eye to their actions. Whether the actions were legal or not needs to be established by the authorities, in court if necessary.

The fact that these officers are willing to try and force the justice system to back down in examining these actions is extremely worrying IMO.

Spot on, IMHO. If the court finds it was legal then that’s a considered judgment and the system has worked. But it’s vital that that system is in place and allowed to work unimpeded

You know who else needs to make quick life or death decisions? Doctors. Nurses. Surgeons. Pilots. Ships’ captains

It is probably rare that the situations that they are in when making those decisions has the potential to threaten their own life?

A negligent discharge of a gun leading to the death of someone which has the possibility of being shot by the person in question needs investigating. 🤔.