Armed police go on strike

“the schisms, splits and ideological polarisation of the over-culture fanned by social media have never been more obvious or more dangerous. Increasingly, it seems many no longer have the ability to occupy the space in-between which contain many different shades of grey - simply unable to stay with the discomfort of not knowing but actively encouraged to be tribal and to react, instead of thinking.”
Hare in the moon
 
Cress said:
“the schisms, splits and ideological polarisation of the over-culture fanned by social media have never been more obvious or more dangerous. Increasingly, it seems many no longer have the ability to occupy the space in-between which contain many different shades of grey - simply unable to stay with the discomfort of not knowing but actively encouraged to be tribal and to react, instead of thinking.”
Hare in the moon
Click to expand...
The propaganda from the media is being dismantled by many. They're no longer simply accepting the media's version of events, having witnessed their lies first hand locally. Others are still soaking it up, even more so as the media drifts further right and gives their prejudices an airing, GB News for instance.
 
Heam44 said:
don’t “know”. That’s why I said “believe”. Do you understand the difference?
Click to expand...

Yes, I am, that’s why referenced it in my first reply. Did you read it ?

As far as beliefs are concerned - you will also be aware bias plays a huge part.
That’s why I focussed on an independent review of one police force.

The police are no different from others - they look after their own and you serve them well.
 
Last edited:
1finny said:
Yes, I am, that’s why referenced it in my first reply. Did you read it ?

As far as beliefs are concerned - you will also be aware bias plays a huge part.
That’s why I focussed on an independent review of one police force.

The police are no different from others - they look after their own and you serve them well.
Click to expand...
Cool, thanks.
 
I have read through the comments on this board, not just on this thread but on others related to the incident in which Chris Kaba was shot. When doing so I told myself I would not comment and want to kick myself for doing so.

I have been a Police AFO for well over 20 years now (not in London). I have
stated this on a couple of occasions previously on here. Reading through the comments it is immediately apparent that there is huge amounts of presumption by many on social media.

I have no first hand knowledge of this case (I wouldnt comment on here if I did) as this was not an operation I was involved in but I would make the following general comments not directly related to the circumstances of what happened on the ground in this incident.

The influence of the press to embellish a story that sells (putting profits before people and justice) is deeply concerning. As is the political influence when a person from an ethnic minority community is shot by armed police.

This incident and the murder charge of an AFO is a milestone moment for armed Policing in the UK. Officers (including myself) considering relinquishing their AFO status following this incident is not always a form of protest (or at least in my case). AFO's have to consider at length the effect this has not only on ourselves but also on our families. There are some long and deep conversations going on behind closed doors right now between AFO's and their loved ones. They often pay a greater price than we do.

I personally know several colleagues who have shot people in the course of their duties and even though no officer has ever been convicted of wrong doing in such circumstances, the repercussion are huge and often life changing yet this role is purely voluntary. There really is no logical reason to moved from general policing to become an AFO beyond the sense of duty, commitment and loyalty to the public and wider society.
 
Mfc79 said:
I have read through the comments on this board, not just on this thread but on others related to the incident in which Chris Kaba was shot. When doing so I told myself I would not comment and want to kick myself for doing so.

I have been a Police AFO for well over 20 years now (not in London). I have
stated this on a couple of occasions previously on here. Reading through the comments it is immediately apparent that there is huge amounts of presumption by many on social media.

I have no first hand knowledge of this case (I wouldnt comment on here if I did) as this was not an operation I was involved in but I would make the following general comments not directly related to the circumstances of what happened on the ground in this incident.

The influence of the press to embellish a story that sells (putting profits before people and justice) is deeply concerning. As is the political influence when a person from an ethnic minority community is shot by armed police.

This incident and the murder charge of an AFO is a milestone moment for armed Policing in the UK. Officers (including myself) considering relinquishing their AFO status following this incident is not always a form of protest (or at least in my case). AFO's have to consider at length the effect this has not only on ourselves but also on our families. There are some long and deep conversations going on behind closed doors right now between AFO's and their loved ones. They often pay a greater price than we do.

I personally know several colleagues who have shot people in the course of their duties and even though no officer has ever been convicted of wrong doing in such circumstances, the repercussion are huge and often life changing yet this role is purely voluntary. There really is no logical reason to moved from general policing to become an AFO beyond the sense of duty, commitment and loyalty to the public and wider society.
Click to expand...
Why don't we just make it law that an AFO can shoot to kill once a shot has been fired by the suspect? Only If the suspect is not suspected of terrorist (I mean having a bomb on them) offences. Wouldn't that avoid mistakes being made?

Do you get paid more for volunteering to be an AFO?
 
Last edited:
sweet_left_foot said:
Why don't we just make it law that AFO shoot to kill once a shot has been fired, if the suspect is not suspected of terrorist (I mean having a bomb on them) offences.
Click to expand...
😂😂😂 cannon fodder!!

Really can’t see any issues with recruitment! People will be queuing up for the role!

Day 1 of training:

Right lads and lasses, first thing we need you to do is get ya wills in order. Make sure your close family know you love them, because I tell you now, we won’t be shooting anyone until they have shot first. It’s the polite thing to do.

Fast forward couple of year at a job:

I’m sorry innocent member of the public I know the bad man has said he is going to start killing his hostages but I need to wait until he has fired at least 1 shot until I can shoot him dead.
 
sweet_left_foot said:
Why don't we just make it law that AFO shoot to kill once a shot has been fired, if the suspect is not suspected of terrorist (I mean having a bomb on them) offences.

Do you get paid more for volunteering to be an AFO?
Click to expand...
Sorry mate. I dont understand what you're asking here?


We don't get paid more to be AFO's. There is no financial incentive which I agree there shouldn't be otherwise officers would join for the wrong reasons.
 
Mfc79 said:
Sorry mate. I dont understand what you're asking here?


We don't get paid more to be AFO's. There is no financial incentive which I agree there shouldn't be otherwise officers would join for the wrong reasons.
Click to expand...
Apologies, I edited. Just asking if it wouldn't make sense for police not to shoot until shot at, or at least the suspect had a gun in their hand.

Fair play for choosing to do more work (having firearms training) for no gain.
 
Mfc79 said:
Sorry mate. I dont understand what you're asking here?


We don't get paid more to be AFO's. There is no financial incentive which I agree there shouldn't be otherwise officers would join for the wrong reasons.
Click to expand...
I believe he’s saying it should be law that you can’t fire a shot until the “criminal” has fired a shot.

Unless the “criminal” has a bomb on them.
 
sweet_left_foot said:
Why don't we just make it law that an AFO can shoot to kill once a shot has been fired by the suspect? Only If the suspect is not suspected of terrorist (I mean having a bomb on them) offences. Wouldn't that avoid mistakes being made?

Do you get paid more for volunteering to be an AFO?
Click to expand...
Yeah but it would result in more innocent people (police and members of the public) being murdered.
 
Heam44 said:
😂😂😂 cannon fodder!!

Really can’t see any issues with recruitment! People will be queuing up for the role!

Day 1 of training:

Right lads and lasses, first thing we need you to do is get ya wills in order. Make sure your close family know you love them, because I tell you now, we won’t be shooting anyone until they have shot first. It’s the polite thing to do.

Fast forward couple of year at a job:

I’m sorry innocent member of the public I know the bad man has said he is going to start killing his hostages but I need to wait until he has fired at least 1 shot until I can shoot him dead.
Click to expand...
That is exactly the case for the rank and file isn't it?
 
The rank and file police officers, who don't have guns, are signing up to the police force in the way you describe in your belittling and supercilious response.

What is currently under debate, in this thread, is innocent people being murdered (or manslaughter, lawful killings, inconclusive investigations, or uncritical narrative conclusions)
 
sweet_left_foot said:
Apologies, I edited. Just asking if it wouldn't make sense for police not to shoot until shot at, or at least the suspect had a gun in their hand.

Fair play for choosing to do more work (having firearms training) for no gain.
Click to expand...
Its not always the that you are dealing with a suspect who is armed with a firearm.

The criteria for the deployment of armed officers falls in to one of the following categories;

The officer authorising the deployment has 'reason to suppose' that officers may have to protect themselves or others from a person who:

- is in possession of, or has immediate access to, a firearm or other potentially lethal weapon, or
- is otherwise so dangerous that the deployment of armed officers is considered to be appropriate,
- or as an operational contingency in a specific operation (based on the threat assessment),
- or for the destruction of animals which are dangerous or are suffering unnecessarily.

There is a lot of ambiguity in certain parts of this criteria. The obvious one being in possession of a potentially lethal weapon. This quite often doesn't necessarily mean a firearm.

It is often extremely difficult to identify what a suspect is holding in their hand. Operating at night, in dark corridors or just with a subject who is hiding or frantically moving their hands causes many difficulties. Every situation is different.
 
Last edited:
Mfc79 said:
Its not always the that you are dealing with a suspect who is armed with a firearm.

The criteria for the deployment of armed officers falls in to one of the following categories;

The officer authorising the deployment has 'reason to suppose' that officers may have to protect themselves or others from a person who:

- is in possession of, or has immediate access to, a firearm or other potentially lethal weapon, or
- is otherwise so dangerous that the deployment of armed officers is considered to be appropriate,
- or as an operational contingency in a specific operation (based on the threat assessment),
- or for the destruction of animals which are dangerous or are suffering unnecessarily.

There is a lot of ambiguity in certain parts of this criteria. The obvious one being in possession of a potentially lethal weapon. This quite often doesn't necessarily mean a firearm.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that, much clearer. I started reading a bit more (albeit wikipedia) and noticed how many reported killings were knife related. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_Kingdom

I understand, and respect, that it is extraordinarily difficult, especially in an enclosed space (a car), to know if a suspect is armed (Duggan, Waldorf, Kaba). I feel "reason to suppose" will get tightened up some more after this event.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top