Armed police go on strike

[Cress]

Except youve conveniently ignored my post pointing out he would have been in court in November facing charges of conspiracy to murder alongside his friends, he also had a previous conviction for using an imitation firearm to incite fear so he’s not just a friend of wrong uns like the above, he clearly appears to be a wrong un himself. So for the second time your post is completely irrelevant.

Thread’s over, they’ve gone back to work. As they’re forbidden to take industrial action by law.

 

[Laughing]

Thread’s over, they’ve gone back to work. As they’re forbidden to take industrial action by law.

I don't believe that is why they have agreed to do armed duty. They never have to and it wasn't industrial action. In fact not all officers have returned to armed duties.

In any event there didn't really need to be a thread. The CPS, an independent body, reviewed the evidence against the officer, without fear or favour and decided he had a case to answer. The exact same law applies to an armed officer as does to a member of the public.

The CPS are not saying he is guilty, that is the domain of a jury. They are saying that they have weighed the evidence and believe a convcition is more likely than not. It doesn't even matter whether he is found guilty or not, in law he has a case to answer, and whichever way the case goes, justice will have been served.

The armed police who handed in their cards in protest are, you would assume, suggesting that a different standard should be applied to them than members of the public. If that is the case that should scare the **** out of us all.

It's probaby worth mentioning what the law says. A police officer may only discharge his weapon when he "reasonably believes" there is an immeadiate threat to life. It is essentially our self defence legislation.

It is worth mentioning that when a police officer fires his weapon he is solely responsible for that. He cannot be ordered to fire his weapon by a senior officer, nor can a pre-emptive decision be made to shoot a suspect.

 

[Unravel_Morrison]

“Amongst the celebrities the Krays knew were actors George Raft, Judy Garland, Diana Dors, Liza Minelli and Jayne Mansfield, and singers Frank Sinatra, Shirley Bassey, Cliff Richard, Danny La Rue as well as comedian Peter Sellers.”
Shoot the lot, or just Shirley ‘cos she’s the only black one

Fun fact of the day - Shirley's mam was from New Marske.

 

[Jonny Ingbar]

I don't believe that is why they have agreed to do armed duty. They never have to and it wasn't industrial action. In fact not all officers have returned to armed duties.

In any event there didn't really need to be a thread. The CPS, an independent body, reviewed the evidence against the officer, without fear or favour and decided he had a case to answer. The exact same law applies to an armed officer as does to a member of the public.

The CPS are not saying he is guilty, that is the domain of a jury. They are saying that they have weighed the evidence and believe a convcition is more likely than not. It doesn't even matter whether he is found guilty or not, in law he has a case to answer, and whichever way the case goes, justice will have been served.

The armed police who handed in their cards in protest are, you would assume, suggesting that a different standard should be applied to them than members of the public. If that is the case that should scare the **** out of us all.

It's probaby worth mentioning what the law says. A police officer may only discharge his weapon when he "reasonably believes" there is an immeadiate threat to life. It is essentially our self defence legislation.

It is worth mentioning that when a police officer fires his weapon he is solely responsible for that. He cannot be ordered to fire his weapon by a senior officer, nor can a pre-emptive decision be made to shoot a suspect.

I think the disaffection that has led to many firearms officers handing in their 'ticket' isn't because they feel the law should be different to them, rather that there's a lack of context applied when considering their actions after a fatal shooting. Equally, there is a feeling that the police service and senior officers are slow and poor to support officers in the position of NX121.

This isn't the first time a police shooting resulted in a murder investigation either, plus the government intervened when the IOPC were looking at a criminal investigation into the action of the armed officers after the Borough Market terror attack.

This has been coming for some time I think. Society asks them to do a difficult job, in difficult circumstances and where they are unfortunate enough to be involved in a fatal shooting, they would say the process afterwards isn't balanced and influenced by other agendas.

I have to say I do have some sympathy with this view. Whilst there isn't a difference in law, there is a difference in context, in that they were pursuing a lawful purpose and the measure applied by those afterwards is often seeking finite perfection, which is unrealistic.

The whole issue has been a point if tension between policing and the IOPC for a number of years, its easy to understand why.

 

[Cress]

It’s not the police nor the black youth for me it’s

Being gay or a woman isn't reason enough to claim asylum, says Suella Braverman​

The home secretary is set to deliver a speech to a thinktank in the US later and is spearheading her government's attempts to "stop the boats" - a key pledge of Rishi Sunak's ahead of an election expected next year.​

By Tim Baker, Political reporter
Tuesday 26 September 2023 10:15, UK

 

[Laughing]

I think the disaffection that has led to many firearms officers handing in their 'ticket' isn't because they feel the law should be different to them, rather that there's a lack of context applied when considering their actions after a fatal shooting. Equally, there is a feeling that the police service and senior officers are slow and poor to support officers in the position of NX121.

This isn't the first time a police shooting resulted in a murder investigation either, plus the government intervened when the IOPC were looking at a criminal investigation into the action of the armed officers after the Borough Market terror attack.

This has been coming for some time I think. Society asks them to do a difficult job, in difficult circumstances and where they are unfortunate enough to be involved in a fatal shooting, they would say the process afterwards isn't balanced and influenced by other agendas.

I have to say I do have some sympathy with this view. Whilst there isn't a difference in law, there is a difference in context, in that they were pursuing a lawful purpose and the measure applied by those afterwards is often seeking finite perfection, which is unrealistic.

The whole issue has been a point if tension between policing and the IOPC for a number of years, its easy to understand why.

On the BBC website it did say that the officers were asking for re-assurances around their role and responsabilities. This does suggest that it wasn't an action in solidarity. I, obviously don't know the facts behind their decision.

I, clearly, have no idea how well officers are supported after a fatal shooting. You could argue that the met, and other forces, place all the responsability on the officer, in as much as it his sole decision and sole responsability. That can work as a double edged sword, of course. I certainly wouldn't want to see a system of qualified immunity that they have in the US, but do appreciate that it's a tough job.
You are right, the context is different, absoloutely.

The officer still has the presumption of innocence, and bail has been granted. Whilst support may be poor, the officer will be judged by a lay jury who will balance the facts as they are presented.

It's an uncomfortable truth that if the officer has made an error of judgement, he may well be found guilty. I did a quick refresher on the kinds of manslaughter available to the courts and it is difficult to see how his actions would fit into either category.

Involuntary manslaughter is when there was no intention to kill. Clearly, this isn't the case here. Voluntary manslaughter requires a degree of loss of control, or diminshed responsability. Thats the closest I can see this case fitting.

Ultimately if his decision making was wrong he may face a prison sentence. One question, that I think will have to be answered is why did no other officers see an immeadiate threat to life. Hopefully there is clear evidence one way or another and justice is done. I really wouldn't want to be on a jury for this.

 

[Heam44]

I don't believe that is why they have agreed to do armed duty. They never have to and it wasn't industrial action. In fact not all officers have returned to armed duties.

In any event there didn't really need to be a thread. The CPS, an independent body, reviewed the evidence against the officer, without fear or favour and decided he had a case to answer. The exact same law applies to an armed officer as does to a member of the public.

The CPS are not saying he is guilty, that is the domain of a jury. They are saying that they have weighed the evidence and believe a convcition is more likely than not. It doesn't even matter whether he is found guilty or not, in law he has a case to answer, and whichever way the case goes, justice will have been served.

The armed police who handed in their cards in protest are, you would assume, suggesting that a different standard should be applied to them than members of the public. If that is the case that should scare the **** out of us all.

It's probaby worth mentioning what the law says. A police officer may only discharge his weapon when he "reasonably believes" there is an immeadiate threat to life. It is essentially our self defence legislation.

It is worth mentioning that when a police officer fires his weapon he is solely responsible for that. He cannot be ordered to fire his weapon by a senior officer, nor can a pre-emptive decision be made to shoot a suspect.

On the BBC website it did say that the officers were asking for re-assurances around their role and responsabilities. This does suggest that it wasn't an action in solidarity. I, obviously don't know the facts behind their decision.

I, clearly, have no idea how well officers are supported after a fatal shooting. You could argue that the met, and other forces, place all the responsability on the officer, in as much as it his sole decision and sole responsability. That can work as a double edged sword, of course. I certainly wouldn't want to see a system of qualified immunity that they have in the US, but do appreciate that it's a tough job.
You are right, the context is different, absoloutely.

The officer still has the presumption of innocence, and bail has been granted. Whilst support may be poor, the officer will be judged by a lay jury who will balance the facts as they are presented.

It's an uncomfortable truth that if the officer has made an error of judgement, he may well be found guilty. I did a quick refresher on the kinds of manslaughter available to the courts and it is difficult to see how his actions would fit into either category.

Involuntary manslaughter is when there was no intention to kill. Clearly, this isn't the case here. Voluntary manslaughter requires a degree of loss of control, or diminshed responsability. Thats the closest I can see this case fitting.

Ultimately if his decision making was wrong he may face a prison sentence. One question, that I think will have to be answered is why did no other officers see an immeadiate threat to life. Hopefully there is clear evidence one way or another and justice is done. I really wouldn't want to be on a jury for this.

Regards to why the officers have considered relinquishing their firearms.

I’d speculate that the reasons are along the lines of:

They have an understanding of what happened during that incident (bad news travels fast) from their colleagues who were present.

And they likely agree entirely with the action taken by their colleague or agree to an extent (only having an anecdotal understanding of the events) whereby they disagree with the CPS decision to charge.

Of course I’m sure we can all agree that this would concentrate the mind, whereby they will all be considering - do they really want to be in a role whereby in any given day they may have to make a spilt second decision on whether to take someone’s life.

If they’re right they still have to live with the trauma of having killed a person potentially wondering if they could have done anything differently. If they’re wrong they have to deal with the above and the fact that they may be about to embark on decades in prison and the impact that would have not only on themselves but their family / children etc.

 

[Laughing]

Regards to why the officers have considered relinquishing their firearms.

I’d speculate that the reasons are along the lines of:

They have an understanding of what happened during that incident (bad news travels fast) from their colleagues who were present.

And they likely agree entirely with the action taken by their colleague or agree to an extent (only having an anecdotal understanding of the events) whereby they disagree with the CPS decision to charge.

Of course I’m sure we can all agree that this would concentrate the mind, whereby they will all be considering - do they really want to be in a role whereby in any given day they may have to make a spilt second decision on whether to take someone’s life.

If they’re right they still have to live with the trauma of having killed a person potentially wondering if they could have done anything differently. If they’re wrong they have to deal with the above and the fact that they may be about to embark on decades in prison and the impact that would have not only on themselves but their family / children etc.

Well that's not what was reported. I have no idea but you can read the article yourself on the BBC news site.

 

[Jonny Ingbar]

On the BBC website it did say that the officers were asking for re-assurances around their role and responsabilities. This does suggest that it wasn't an action in solidarity. I, obviously don't know the facts behind their decision.

I, clearly, have no idea how well officers are supported after a fatal shooting. You could argue that the met, and other forces, place all the responsability on the officer, in as much as it his sole decision and sole responsability. That can work as a double edged sword, of course. I certainly wouldn't want to see a system of qualified immunity that they have in the US, but do appreciate that it's a tough job.
You are right, the context is different, absoloutely.

The officer still has the presumption of innocence, and bail has been granted. Whilst support may be poor, the officer will be judged by a lay jury who will balance the facts as they are presented.

It's an uncomfortable truth that if the officer has made an error of judgement, he may well be found guilty. I did a quick refresher on the kinds of manslaughter available to the courts and it is difficult to see how his actions would fit into either category.

Involuntary manslaughter is when there was no intention to kill. Clearly, this isn't the case here. Voluntary manslaughter requires a degree of loss of control, or diminshed responsability. Thats the closest I can see this case fitting.

Ultimately if his decision making was wrong he may face a prison sentence. One question, that I think will have to be answered is why did no other officers see an immeadiate threat to life. Hopefully there is clear evidence one way or another and justice is done. I really wouldn't want to be on a jury for this.

I think your point around the charges avaliable in such circumstances is a really good one - there is little else available in the absence of murder, which naturally creates a tension in itself.

In terms of accountability it is obviously the person who pulled the trigger that sits in that category, but it's worth remembering that the information he was provided with when briefed will form part of his decision making ie what was the perceived risk overall? That in itself means that he is reliant on others getting their part right, including the veracity of the intelligence provided about those subject to the operation.

Ultimately the case will be decided on what the officer believed at the material time.

I'm not going to speculate on how this will play out, for obvious reasons, plus I don't have the benefit of knowing the details, but personal experience dictates my starting point.

 

[Heam44]

Well that's not what was reported. I have no idea but you can read the article yourself on the BBC news site.

This is the only article I have found on the homepage of the BBC News England page.

Met Police: London still facing armed officer shortage - Sir Mark Rowley

Sir Mark Rowley says disruption is continuing after hundreds of officers stepped back from firearms duties.

www.bbc.co.uk

Couple of quotes from the article:

Speaking at a meeting of the London policing board, he said: "A lot of this is driven by families - many of them are under pressure from their partners, wives, husbands, parents, children saying, 'I'm worried about what you might go through based on your job.'"

Sir Mark has previously said armed officers fear facing years of investigation when they use their weapons "even if they stick to the tactics and training they have been given".

I’d imagine that’s not the same article you read however that appears to be the latest article regarding the matter on the BBC website which is certainly echoing a similar account to my post.

 

[Laughing]

This is the only article I have found on the homepage of the BBC News England page.

Met Police: London still facing armed officer shortage - Sir Mark Rowley

Sir Mark Rowley says disruption is continuing after hundreds of officers stepped back from firearms duties.

www.bbc.co.uk

Couple of quotes from the article:

Speaking at a meeting of the London policing board, he said: "A lot of this is driven by families - many of them are under pressure from their partners, wives, husbands, parents, children saying, 'I'm worried about what you might go through based on your job.'"

Sir Mark has previously said armed officers fear facing years of investigation when they use their weapons "even if they stick to the tactics and training they have been given".

I’d imagine that’s not the same article you read however that appears to be the latest article regarding the matter on the BBC website which is certainly echoing a similar account to my post.

Just going into a meeting, I'll look in my history fpr the article and post it for you

 

[Heam44]

Just going into a meeting, I'll look in my history fpr the article and post it for you

No need, I believe you, not suggesting your lying / incorrect or whatever

 

[Merrykoala]

I remember before every guard duty having to watch the rules of engagement video for using lethal force from age 17 to 28 when I left the Army. It never changed, even after the canary wharf bombing in 96 when we were expecting an imminent attack and had to move beds away from windows. Even in Northern Ireland and Bosnia etc.

I don't know how often the police get refresher training on this sort of thing or if they get regular briefings from Lawyers which is again something the Army did when you went into theatre but the law is the law. We did simulation training in NI and the guy next to me shot the terrorist in the back 5 times, the instructor asked him if he would do that in a real scenario and he said he would. He was told in no uncertain terms that he'd be going to prison as there was no way it could be justified.

 

[Laughing]

No need, I believe you, not suggesting your lying / incorrect or whatever

Just looked Heam, and the smaller article I read this morning has been expanded to include the passages you posted. It makes some interesting points.

 

[Jonny Ingbar]

I remember before every guard duty having to watch the rules of engagement video for using lethal force from age 17 to 28 when I left the Army. It never changed, even after the canary wharf bombing in 96 when we were expecting an imminent attack and had to move beds away from windows. Even in Northern Ireland and Bosnia etc.

I don't know how often the police get refresher training on this sort of thing or if they get regular briefings from Lawyers which is again something the Army did when you went into theatre but the law is the law. We did simulation training in NI and the guy next to me shot the terrorist in the back 5 times, the instructor asked him if he would do that in a real scenario and he said he would. He was told in no uncertain terms that he'd be going to prison as there was no way it could be justified.

Before any operation police firearms officers are reminded of the legalities around the use of force by the firearms commander, but to be fair they are 100% conscious of it everyday.