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 2nd Nov 2004, 17:25
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Nottingham UK
Age: 80
Posts: 5,277
Firearms Officers refusing to carry out duty

More than 120 firearms officers in London are refusing to carry guns after two colleagues were suspended over a shooting, police representatives claim. Tonight on BBC News.

Can they do this? What about the Army lads serving in Iraq, One soldier is currently under going a murder charge. If the Army refused to carry guns they would no doubt be charged with mutiny. This country gets crazier by day.
MReyn24050 is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2004, 17:46
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Frimley, Surrey.
Posts: 182
What a bunch of losers these guys are! Two of their colleagues shot an old guy carrying a table leg in a plastic bag. Obviously totally over the top and totally unjustified. Result: Oooh! Let's all come out in sympathy with incompetent twats! They should've been dismissed, not suspended.
spork is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2004, 17:59
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Rain, hedges, fields, merry old England
Posts: 20
Really? Interestingly, if they had let some nutter shoot an innocent civilian, we'd all be here saying "These incompentent luvvies should be more decisive"

Retrospect is a wonderful thing isn't it?
Dead_Heading is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2004, 18:00
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Where you left me.
Posts: 162
and if it had been a gun and they didn't take him down and he killed someone, what then?

i don't know the ins and outs of this story, if the officers involved were deemed to have used excessive force then rightly they should be suspended or even dismissed. unfortunately it's a very tough job they have to do, and if you put yourself in their shoes, facing someone who is reported to perhaps be carrying a gun and forces them into a position where they could be at risk of being fatally wounded, would you like to wait and find out? the armed police aren't there to take bullets for people.

what were the circumstances behind him getting shot? was he asked to put the bag down and lie on the ground? and did he do it straight away?

im not sure whether or not armed officers are allowed to refuse to carry arms. technically they are not striking from their roles as police officers because they can pound the beat like a regular bobby without a gun.
r44flyer is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2004, 18:00
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,443
Easy to second guess they guys keeping you safe.

Can a link to the actual story be posted by someone?
West Coast is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2004, 18:01
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Rain, hedges, fields, merry old England
Posts: 20
here you go
Dead_Heading is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2004, 18:05
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: ESSEX
Age: 61
Posts: 95
guns

Apparently the "victim" was holding the leg in a bag as though it were a sawnoff shotgun waving it around and shouting " Come near me and I will blow you away!" or the like. A bit irrational once the police arrive with guns. Still we cannot have members of the public having their rights to act like complete idiots infringed can we.
I now understand why american police use a throwdown in situations like this. (This is where they drop a real weapon at the scene if things go wrong)
Remember that young soldier name of Clegg as I recall. Got 15 years in prison when he was found to have shot someone who was running a road block. 10 years later they found it was not him who fired the shot. A mate of mine was in Ireland in the 70s. He was ordered to open fire on some guys transfering guns to a truck. He put a full clip into an earth bank to be sure of not getting a murder charge.
bigflyingrob is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2004, 18:12
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Castle Diabolique
Posts: 17
Danger Harry Stanley

Apparently one of the officers that shot Mr Stanley in the head is quoted to say that he had been aiming for his body the other shot hit Mr Stanley in the Hand. Surely this inacurate marksmanship should be enough to have the officers removed from SO19? Whether or not the two officers are guilty of anything will be found out in due course however in my opinion the behaviour of their fellow Met Officers is outrageous.

More information on the inquest so you may check the facts first:

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=437

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?...7&id=674072002

Last edited by Diabolus; 2nd Nov 2004 at 18:23.
Diabolus is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2004, 18:12
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,443
DH
Thanks for the link. It didn't really speak to the tactical situation the officers had to deal with. If its anything like bigflyingrob posted I am sympathetic to the police as they had to make a judgment in a short time frame.
West Coast is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2004, 18:17
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Rain, hedges, fields, merry old England
Posts: 20
There are some links on the article listed to more tactical information.
Dead_Heading is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2004, 18:39
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Frimley, Surrey.
Posts: 182
Oh - yeah - your hardline points have fully persuaded me in this matter. People carrying plastic bags should all be shot. It's got to be for the best surely?

Good luck with the Christmas shopping!
spork is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2004, 18:52
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,443
What if he was shouting madly at you, making threats and possibly concealing a weapon as the outline of a table leg in a bag might suggest?
West Coast is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2004, 19:00
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Cheltenham
Posts: 143
IF this person was holding the chairleg wrapped in a plastic bag like a shot gun and IF he is reported as threatening to shoot people then the Police had every reason to put him down , not shoot him in the head. This smacks of very poor shooting, not the standards of marksmanship you expect of highly trained officers of SO19, therefore they are incompetent and should be treated as such.I reserve judgement as to whether they should go down for manslaughter...how often during the day would a copper check the sights on his weapon....did they become out of true resulting in the shooting in the head as opposed to the body..how far were they from the target etc etc etc
simon brown is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2004, 19:00
  #14 (permalink)  

Senis Semper Fidelis
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Lancashire U K
Posts: 1,288
Sadly it seems that normal Mr Plod, aint bright enough to recognise placci bags with wooden legs inside, next time your on your way home from the Offy with a sixpack of the Amber Nectar that could resemble a bomb, so if anyone shoutss at you drop to the ground straight away,..........or else last thing you'll hear is a high speed whooshing sound as a shell aimed at you body takes away part of your sensory area in your head,

But because it was thought you had a bomb, its all right. they go down to the Winchester Club, and you finnish up on a slab,

Fair, or what?

Vfr
Vfrpilotpb is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2004, 19:14
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Rain, hedges, fields, merry old England
Posts: 20
was a member of the public who told the police he was armed. Not only that, they mistook his scotch accent for an irish one. The police were told he was an armed irishman.
Dead_Heading is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2004, 19:19
  #16 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Nottingham UK
Age: 80
Posts: 5,277
I thank you for the response. However my concern is not with the Officers involved but the similar predicament faced by our boys in Iraq. When I was in the Army our training on the range was "Shot to Kill". Yet today it seems that they must make sure that their life or their fellow soldiers is in danger before they open fire. It could be too late. They do not have the right to say they will not take part. So why have the police that rioht?
MReyn24050 is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2004, 19:19
  #17 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 12,112
I sympathise with the police marksmen.

I cannot understand how anyone brandishing what was quite possibly a concealed weapon and threatening to shoot armed policeman could expect to receive any other treatment.

A very difficult judgement call which was tragically wrong as it turned out.

Myself and my peers (I'm ex military) were trained that if ever we had cause to shoot, then to ensure that we did NOT try to wound, but to finish the job. Otherwise you are likely to become a victim yourself. Nasty business but that is how it is.
ShyTorque is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2004, 19:38
  #18 (permalink)  
Union Goon
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
What's the problem with a headshot?

Frankly if it comes times to draw weapons, and a guy brandishing something that looks like a weapon MAKING THREATS fits the bill, then put the bastard down, and permanently.

As long as no rounds found an innocent bystander, I have absolutely no problems with this cop's marksmanship, and anyone who does is frankly crazy, or watches too much TV and thinks the impossible is really possible.

Cheers
Wino
Wino is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2004, 19:40
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,443
"threatening to shoot people then the Police had every reason to put him down , not shoot him in the head. This smacks of very poor shooting, not the standards of marksmanship you expect of highly trained officers of SO19, therefore they are incompetent and should be treated as such"

I honestly don't know the answer, are the officers orders when using weapons to shoot to kill or to disable?

Not anyones opinion what the order should be, but what framework those officers had to work within that day.
West Coast is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2004, 19:57
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Pewsey, UK
Posts: 1,910
Police officers volunteer to train for firearms.

Those taking the action are seeing the system - for good or bad - suspend their colleagues five years after an event which required split-second decision making.

So, they've handed in their authorisations rather than face the same situation of doing what they thought was best, and be slated for it - John Stevens made the point that five years is justice for no-one, families of the bereaved included.

And for those commenting on the lack or otherwise of marksmanship, if you have the same level of training and experience, feel free to proffer an opinion - if not, keep it to yourselves.
The Nr Fairy is offline  

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.