Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Firearms Officers refusing to carry out duty

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Firearms Officers refusing to carry out duty

Old 3rd Jun 2005, 18:33
  #61 (permalink)  

Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,746
I thought they were Pelican crossings now
Onan the Clumsy is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2005, 19:11
  #62 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499

There is the possibility that they were not guilty.........Just a thought.
bjcc is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2005, 15:00
  #63 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2001
Location: south of Cirencester, north of Lyneham
Age: 72
Posts: 1,243

I could never understand how they got a not guilty verdict in the Waldorf case. The cops admitted that even after he was lying there injured, they were trying to kill him. Then it turned out that they'd got a perfectly innocent guy........Subsequently, they kept raiding his flat to try and find drugs, presumably to try and reduce the amount of compensation.

A very senior retired policeman I knew froma provincial force(regrettably now dead from cancer) told me that he couldn't understand how the verdict was obtained either, but said 'he had his suspicions'.

Whatever that may mean....
radeng is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2005, 21:02
  #64 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499

The fact it was he wrong guy really wasn't relevent. The fact is they thought he was the right guy.

As I recall (and it was a long time ago) the defence was that the real villian of the piece sent Waldorf & woman out as a decoy, which the Police fell for.

apparently at the time they challenged him, he reached into his pocket, he said for a comb. The poiice presumed (given the circumstances understandably so) it was for a gun, and shot him...albeit lots of times.

The ammo used at that time was ...erm crap, and as he kept moving, apparently they kept shooting. Hence as you say he was laying on the ground and they kept trying to kill him.

The person they thought it was, was a nasty bit of work and would have, given a chance, killed anyone in his way. Thats why they were aquitted.

I doubt there was any other factor involved in the court decision, except possibly an element of juries relucant to convict police officers.
bjcc is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2005, 23:47
  #65 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 70
Posts: 15,934
I speak from eight years carrying guns as a police officer in the USA....and having worked in some very nasty neighborhoods.

The officers in this incident are every bit the victims the deceased is. Lets accept some facts here....they did not seek out this man for any evil reason. They were dispatched there at the request of a citizen who reported seeing a firearm descriibed as being a shotgun. The deceased is reported to have stated to witnesses he had a shotgun. Whether he actually had a shotgun at this point is inmaterial....the officers had received reasonable information upon which to consider the man armed with a shotgun.

The approached the man from behind in an open street....we do not know about available cover for the officers...cars, utility poles, rubbish bins, bus stops....so we have to assume they were unable to confront the suspect from behind cover. This puts the officers in a weak tactical position not of their doing.

It is possible, that waiting for a better location could be done...but we do not know of the presence of bystanders that would be at risk if the officers had waited. Remember...the mindset of the officers is the man is armed based upon what they have been told.

As they approach the suspect, they see he is in fact carrying a long solid object that is concealed in a bag as described by the witnesses in the pub. This works to confirm the information they had been provided.

The officers, without the man being able to see them, announce they are Armed Police and that he should stop in place. The man naturally begins to turn around having heard the challenge. That would be a reasonable thing for him to do.

The key to the officers' account is whether the man in fact shouted threats at them or not...and whether he pointed the object at either of them.

Simply put....if he did that....I would be entitled to shoot him dead by state law. My department policy was more stringent than the law....it required me to see a weapon or see such action by the suspect to reasonably believe it was an aggressive act of trying to use a weapon.

Depending upon what the suspect was doing with his hands would determine if I would shoot this man. If I saw what I felt to be dangerous movements of his hands.....he gets shot....until he falls to the ground and ceases to be a threat.

If he did not point the object at me....if he was not uttering threats....I would not shoot him....I could not under department policy. If he only uttered threats but made no move to point the object at me....he is safe from being shot.....but as I approach him....any...any....aggressive move that brings that object towards me or my partner....such as would be consistent with a firearm....he gets shot.....again until he falls to the ground and ceases to resist.

My training was that one officer would control the suspect by command....order the suspect to face away from the officers...hold his hands high in the air...and would order the weapon (suspect object) to be placed on the ground without pointing towards the officers. The suspect would then be ordered to move away from the weapon and to lay upon the ground face down looking away from the officers. We would then move to the suspect and immediately handcuff him....and do a thorough seach for other weapons and evidence. All during the cuffing procedure....the cuffing officer would be covered by the other officer who would point his weapon at the suspect until the suspect was safely cuffed.

Any aggressive move by the suspect at that time could result in his being shot....depending upon the action seen. Generally at this point all boys in blue pile on to the suspect and control him manually.

If the man made no threats....if he did not point the object at the officers....and was merely turning around...and got shot. I am afraid I have some concern over that. If the officers had available cover and did not use it....if they could have moved apart and put the man into a 90 degree crossfire...especially from good coverered positions....and did not....I am afraid I have some concerns over that. If the suspect made no aggessive moves at all and was merely turning to see what the shouting was about....then the cops are dead wrong for shooting him....in my opinion.

As you make your decision about this...make sure you read all of the information possible before you make up your mind. The police officers on the street being confronted with these situations are in a very tough and dangerous position. A Shotgun at 12-20 feet is a devastating weapon....if it is a multi-barreled or contains a number of shells it could be very deadly to the officers. If they were in the open and not able to find cover before challenging the suspect they were in a vulnerable position. They did not know he was not a terrorist or madman intent upon mass murder....but they had every reasonable suspicion he was armed.

The fact he had a prior criminal record in and of itself is not relevant to the incident beyond giving rise to a question as to how the suspect responded to being challenged by two armed officers. One needs to read all the documentation to attempt to determine his state of mind as it relates to that.

I would think a fair review of all the witness statements and an examination of the physical evidence will work to subtantiate one of the two versions. Either the suspect was agressive and non-responsive....and got himself shot for it........or...the cops shot too quick. If he was agressive and uttered threats and pointed that object at the officers....shame on him. If he made no threats nor made any aggessive act....and did not point the object at the officers....shame on them.

A for what its worth....I walked into a house to find a young man holding a very long sharp dagger to a young child's throat....he was offering to cut the child's throat....there was already a bit of blood showing where the knife had nicked the child's throat. I was standing less than ten feet away....with weapon drawn and pointed directly between the suspect's eyes....I would not have missed. Fortunately, everyone went away from there alive....but if he had not dropped the knife the second time I asked him to....I would have splattered his brains all over the parlor floor. It would have been an absolutely legal shooting. I was not going to ask a third time.

That is the kinds of decisions cops have to make. How do you prepare yourself for that....what kind of training actually prepares you to make that decision? I could have guessed wrong and that knife could have been shoved into the small child's brain. Something told me the suspect would drop the knife.....I am so glad he did.

Don't judge all your police officers by any single event....they have a very difficult job to do...most of them do it without weapons and are wounded on duty with no real means to defend themselves. The Armed Cops....carry an extra burden...put yourself into their shoes....wait too long and die yourself....don't wait long enough and have to live with that the rest of your life.
SASless is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2005, 00:15
  #66 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Horsham
Age: 40
Posts: 116
I really cant be bothered to go through 5 pages.

However I can plainly see that anyone that supports the dead guy is a feckin moron.

Being an officer is very hard work. I laugh at the moron whos arguement is "a table leg in a bin liner doesnt look like a gun". You would soon shut your thick trap once your wife got shot up by such a div. political correctness has gone mad these days. This cnut got shot for a good reason and i now and will always support the officers decission. The family are thick as ****. Scummers. Benefit takers. They dont have my vote
cosworth211 is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2005, 10:26
  #67 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: under the stairs
Posts: 21
While I agree that there will be no case for murder - the lesser charges will be less easy to dismiss.

What is difficult for most people to understand is how a man can go for a pint ( there is no medical evidence that he was drunk) walk down the street and be gunned down by the Police. Many have proffered the suicide by cop theory - after all what sort of fool would wave a table leg (gun) at armed Police officers? (This actually happened in Scotland recently and a person with serious mental health problems was shot and wounded).No one has found any evidence that this man was suicidal. In fact all that has been proven is that he was in carrying a table leg not a shotgun.

Now the Police officers own evidence seems to be being questioned and it would seem that there is evidence to back this up.

For some reason much has been made of the fact that the Police thought the suppose gunman was Irish ( does Irish = terrorist) - This does not bode well for all the Irish people resident in London.

SASless - I also hope that the Police as a whole will not be judged on one event.

P.S. Cosworth - go away.Abusive posts like yours add nothing to the debate.
GeneralMelchet is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2005, 13:28
  #68 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: London
Posts: 358

For the record, the last words the victim ever said were as he ordered his drink in the pub....nothing else. The police don't claim he said anything either.


What planet are you from? You can't be bothered to read the previous 5 pages of postings which would educate you on the specifics of the case and the legal ground the police stand on, but you are only too happy to make a decision based therefore on no knowledge of this case?

The family are not benefit takers.

Following your reasoning, if you were walking home from the pub tomorrow, someone unbeknown to you suspects you have a shotgun, police are called, the run up behind you and shoot you in the back of the head, they would then be justified? Afterall, you could have shot my wife with your non-existant shotgun.

I'd be intrigued to hear any further pearls of wisdom you wish to offer! Please, entertain me!!

Last edited by Dave Martin; 22nd Jul 2005 at 17:36.
Dave Martin is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.