UKC

Do police officers require better protection from prosecution.... Or

Do the public deserve police officers to be more accountable

Review of police gun use ordered by David Cameron - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35144366

In reply to rockjedi12345:

There's certainly a place for a review. If the government is still hell bent on increasing the amount of officers carrying fire arms then it's worthwhile making sure they don't all end up in prison once more people start getting shot.

No one seems to make a big fuss but the hysteria surrounding terrorism has slowly made police officers carrying guns a much more common sight. As of a couple of years ago we have our own crack squad of gun toting terror busters constantly on patrol in rural dumfries and galloway but seen as there's no terrorism threats here they just do normal police work but while carrying guns so they are ready if anything does happen outside of the ordinary friday night drunkards, kids smoking pot and follk nicking tracktors. I don't see the difference between this and having regular police carry guns, which everyone's supposed to be against including most of the police force.

In reply to Sharp:

Interesting your linking this to terrorism no doubt after the events in Paris but I think it highly suspicious this review has not so much been announced after the not so uncommon police killing of a person in dubious circumstances but the highly unusual arrest of the police shooter and interview under criminal caution.

Interesting times

In reply to Sharp:

I once visited the fireams uniit covering Cheshire. This was about 4 years ago. For the whole of Cheshire ( which includes the motorway links between Liverpool and Manchester, but not Manchester Airport). There were 8 trained firearms officers.

At the time I could not get over how few there were.

In London I had read there were 132. It's not exactly many.

In reply to rockjedi12345:

This is the current situation (as lifted from your link) :-

Officers must consider whether the use of "reasonable force" has a lawful objective and basis. Their options include:
self-defence - common law (legal precedents set by courts and judges)
defence of another person - common law
preventing damage to property - Criminal Damage Act 1971
preventing a crime, by making an arrest or apprehension - Criminal Law Act 1967
An officer must also determine how immediate and grave a threat is, and whether any action short of using force could be deployed instead.

It's pretty explicit in terrorist or similar attacks where the police are responding to a situation, but it seems to become a lot more complicated in cases where the police are being proactive and are the attackers, such as in the follow up operations in Paris and Brussels. How far does the concept of "self defence" go? Is a pre-empted strike against a person or people you know or strongly suspect are planning to cause harm to you or other people strictly "self defence"? Where it is known or the police strongly believe that the people they are carrying out a pre-emptive strike against will resist with lethal force, is it OK to shoot them first thus avoiding putting your own life or the lives of colleagues at risk by attempting to detain them?

I don't know the answers but I welcome the proposed review on police gun use. We, society are asking the police to do a dangerous job requiring split second decisions and it is unfortunately inevitable that mistakes will be made. With the benefit of hindsight when investigating such mistakes we should not lose sight of the fact that the police are human beings just like the rest of us.

In reply to Trangia:
The current case is an interesting one. Someone is claiming that the man shot was asleep! Seems unlikely. Was he enough of an immediate threat to be shot though? And given that they were there to spring people from court who had been riding round with a gun and a machine gun, should it need to be an immediate threat?

Edit this one https://londonist.com/2015/12/wood-green-shooting-breaking-news

In reply to Indy:



In the UK at least your "not so uncommon police killing of a person in dubious circumstances" is presumably a misprint.

You clearly meant to say "not common at all".

In reply to rockjedi12345:

I was a bit disturbed to hear a police spokesman on TV the other day saying that officers might "hesitate to open fire" unless they get this allegedly required protection. I would have expected always hesitancy before opening fire unless a situation which should properly involve the military

In reply to Trangia:
How many officers have been prosecuted despite the many killings and indeed less than fatal shootngs ( eg the Stephen Waldorf case)?

The review shoulds also look to see whether the public are protected enough


btw I wholeheartedly back the police generally in their day to day role, but we must be very vigilant not to walk down an oily slope

In reply to wercat:


Isn't this part of the problem? The fight against terrorism is becoming more akin to warfare than policing. Again I think of the long siege and shoot out between the holed up terrorists in Paris where thousands of rounds were fired by both sides using assault rifles.

In the UK we have in the past used the Army's Special Forces in such situations. I don't know if we still would or do the police now have enough trained officers to conduct such an operation without recourse to the Military?

In reply to off-duty:

It doesn't have to be common to say that the police are killing too many people in dubious circumstances yet all the public get is the same bullshit excuse " I though my life was in danger".

One law for us another for the Police.

In reply to Indy:


Lots of laws for us actually. Large numbers of which are ignored/broken by the general public on a regular basis, hence the need for the Police.

In reply to wercat:

Part of the problem, which is of the Police's own making, is that when an innocent person has been the victim of the police in the past, there has been obstruction and general obfuscation to prevent officers (who probably should never have been in the force anyway) being dealt with by the full force of the law.
This leads the public in general, and civil rights lawyers in particular, to question any possible change in the law regarding this matter.
If the police had been more open in the past, then the public would be more amenable to change. As it is, there will be a worry that any change (to deal with terrorists) will be extended to others, in exactly the same way that the police have misused the anti-terror laws elsewhere.

In reply to wercat:


That police spokesman comes from the Police department for media manipulation. They're normally out in force after a dubious killing. They come out with things like "Jean Charles de Menezes was wearing a thick bulky jacket" i.e. to hide a suicide bomb or that he "jumped over the tube station barriers", that Rodney Azelle had a machine gun or in this most recent Police killing in London that the dead man was a gang member. It is of course ALL bullshit.

In reply to Indy:


I agree that killing one person is "too many" if avoidable. Your defintion of dubious, does itself appear to be a little dubious. I would agree that the circumstances where these innocent members of the public find themselves surrounded by criminals and illegal firearms is dubious - but I'm probably coming from a different angle than you.

I'm glad you can live your life comfortable in the knowledge that you will never have to use force against another because "I thought my life was in danger".
I guess we should take it as a compliment, so thanks.


No, several laws in fact. And they apply equally. As you must know if you want to make any sort of constructive, or even just well-reasoned, criticism of police actions.

In reply to wercat:


I think you might be confusing prosecuted with investigated.

In reply to fred99:

Agree 100%

Look at the report into the police killing of James Ashley who was naked, half asleep not to mention unarmed. Its truly sicking that nobody was sent to prison.

In reply to off-duty:


I'm sure your aware of the case of James Ashley...... you can honestly say that?

In reply to Indy:


I didn't realise we were discussing an 18 year old case where officers were prosecuted for murder but acquitted.
Is that an example of "common" ?

In reply to off-duty:

surely a good example of what has happened and what could happen?

In reply to illepo:

I'm not sure about "good" - but certainly an example of "could".
Obviously needs to be set in context of the number of identical ops that pass entirely without incident - except for the arrest of the suspect of course.

Still not entirely sure why a preplanned operation, where a warrant is being executed, in the dark, by an overt firearms team; is being raised when the current events involve a covert armed strike on a live unfolding job.
Not to mention that it occurred 18 years earlier.

In reply to Trangia:
Personally I'm not against the military being used in a firefight, with reservations about rules of engagement in order to prevent a Bloody Sunday scenario. I am rather against the police being employed to kill or neutralise as an instrument of state security as it is my quaint belief that police should always be acting to uphold the civil law which generally acts to preserve life, except in extremis. Perhaps that is my age speaking, but regimes employing paramilitary police with special immunities have gone beyond the kind of country I'd like to live in - that is what we need to watch out for. I was just as hostile to some of Blunkett and Straw propositions so this is not a party political viewpoint, and nor is it as a result of hostility to the police generally.

In reply to Indy:

Out of interest would you have no armed police within the UK?

I agree that anyone who dies (or indeed is injured) as a result of police action is tragic. However, sadly some people are intent on living a lifestyle which does involve violence and weapons and these individuals are not always going to be able to be dealt with by officers that are not adequately equipped such as firearms.

They will not "come quietly" and will not always coopearte with the police. How should such individuals be dealt with. Should they just be left to go about their criminality?

If we ask the police on our behalf to deal with such violent individuals then it stands to reason that eventually mistakes will be made. But if individuals are acting in good faith should they be punished?

In reply to rockjedi12345:
if they acquiesce to a policy that does not properly protect the innocent then they are complicit from the top (including politicians) to the bottom. Failure to ID before killing on sight is such a neglect when willingly executing a plan that does not allow for the correction of bad intelligence or identification (ie killing without challenge) - such state acts should only be carried out in a military context, not by protectors of the civil peace

In reply to wercat:

I assume you refer to Charles de menezes. A tragic mistake and one that should never have occurred.

However the firearms officers believed him to be a suicide bomber, they entered the underground just 2 weeks after the 7/7 bombings. They entered the tube with no regard for their safety in order to protect others. In my opinion The firearms officers acted selflessly.

In reply to rockjedi12345:
I think the policy itself and its subsequent execution was not considered carefully enough, nor the implications for the police force. Policing is by consent and I do not consent to have a child of mine, and hence of any other parent, killed deliberately by police who have not challenged. Being killed in a crossfire during an exchange with terrorists is another matter, an accident of fate of the kind that have always befallen people randomly.

In reply to rockjedi12345:

My original question was do the officers need better protection.

Should they face potential murder charges for discharging the duties which they hold the office of constable and voluntarily carry firearms..

There have been 5 fatal police shootings in the last 5 years (with none in 2013). Source http://www.inquest.org.uk/statistics/fatal-police-shootings

The police are not gunning down individuals on weekly basis.

In reply to rockjedi12345:

Probably, in some cases they do, as we require them not to act with doubts in their minds when taking on clear and obvious wrongdoers. But that doesn't relieve the duty to protect the wellbeing of others who innocently are just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

In reply to rockjedi12345:





Potentially yes they could (and have) face murder charges. I think that the police would accept that is appropriate - they do not have a 'licence to kill' and if they make an error they are held accountable.

Equally they should not be hung out to dry if they take reasonable actions, as judged by a jury if appropriate.

In reply to wercat:

I don't disagree

But from my understanding a suicide bomber is dealt with in a specific way. Shooting them in the head repeatedly to completely stop reflexes. Challenging a suicide bomber would lead to many more people potentially dying from their acts.

I agree the police should challenge but sadly in such situations that chalange could lead to the deaths of many.

In reply to Dr.S at work:



Absolutely. The only issue I have is when a decision that has to be taken in a fraction of a second is subject to protracted arguments for weeks. By all means prosecute clearly malicious or negligent actions, and in the De Menezes case correct the flaws in policies and procedures. However the situation the officers were placed in and the resultant stresses should be taken into account.

In reply to wercat:


What policy are you objecting to?

In reply to wercat:


I'm a bit confused. Police shouldn't shoot marauding gunmen on sight, but it's Ok for the Army to rock up and blat away?

In reply to Indy:


Yes, it is all (or largely) bullshit.

The "bulky jacket" confusion came from eye witnesses and media interviews of members of the public, mistakenly propagated by Met. press releases making reference only to "clothing" in the immediate aftermath of events.
There was a full investigation into this - see Stockwell Two report.

Rodney Azelle (and the two others in the car, convicted and sent to prison) was the subject of Op. Tayport, where the HMRC believed they were en route to collect machine guns prior to carrying out a robbery. That was the Intel case - in fact they only picked up hand guns. Those carrying out the strike, not having access to telepathy or xray vision were working off the intelligence case.

In reply to off-duty:


There's been a long long history of the police killing innocent unarmed people in highly dubious circumstances as I've already said and thanks for pointing out that when it comes to accountability.... they get a way with it!

Its interesting that there appears to be a link between the police killing of James Ashley and the latest killing of Jermaine Baker in north London. Ashley was killed at 04:12 while stumbling around unarmed and naked while half asleep. It now appears that the police have out done themselves. The reason the killer of Jermaine Baker was arrested and interviewed under police caution was that it appears he was FULLY asleep on the back seat when he was shot dead.

As UKC's number 1 Police apologist I'm looking forward to how your going to spin it if Baker was asleep.

In reply to Indy:

"If"

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Yes, that's the reason I put it in my post. But I can't remember EVER when a police shooter has been arrested and interviewed under caution so quickly after a killing.

We shall see.

In reply to Indy: I'll spin it for you. Can you actually imagine approaching a vehicle which you know or believe contains armed men intent on breaking serious criminals out of custody? Where if you miss the slightest twitch or movement you might get shot. Your family might lose their dad. Doesn't matter how much training you have done, these are situations where the result can't be guaranteed no matter the policies or planning behind them. It may have been the officers first operation. Any number of things could have gone wrong. I don't know what you do for a living but your sanctimonious attitude and willingness to throw around glib accusations against men and women who would turn up if you called them and put themselves between you and harm is not impressive

In reply to Indy:

Asleep? Were you there.... Until the report is published we do not know what happened and whether the make was alseep. Reports also detil a non police issue firearm.

My thought is that the IPCC are being less than independent, they are making a point of highlighting their actions. The officer did not need to be arrested he could have been interviewed under caution and still be charged.

I feel that this was done purely to make the IPCC seem like they are holding the officer to account.

It would be as easy to say that Jermaine baker was hiding on the back seat not complying with the officer whilst holding a gun. I think that until the report is complete we can't hold blame anywhere.

In reply to rockjedi12345:

Just so I'm clear I'm not saying he was or wasn't asleep, just we don't know the facts

In reply to Indy:


Odd logic here. First - "there's a long history" - well obviously. The police are really the only arm of the state that can use force to enforce the law. They have existed for over a hundred and fifty years, so if you want to bring up incidents from 1850 feel free, it won't really strengthen your case.
Second "dubious circs" - the two incidents are a firearms warrant of a suspected drug dealer, and a firearms strike on a gang of suspected armed criminals. I'm not clear what is dubious about that
Finally - "accountability" - I'm not sure what accountability you want that trumps being put on trial for murder, but you seem to be a tiny bit one-sided here.


Wow. Has that been released as evidence now? If it subsequently proves wrong will you be berating the source in the same way that you complain about the "bulky padded jacket" of Dr Menezes?


Personally I'd prefer to wait until the evidence is in prior to leaping to judgement. It's a pity you don't share that view.

In reply to Indy:



I know it's remarkably quick. My suspicion would be that any arrest is based on the statements provided BY THE POLICE following the incident.
As you no doubt know, police are required to provide detailed statements of events following a shooting.
Unlike members of the public.

I wonder how UKC's No. 5 anti-police poster will respond if that's the case ?

In reply to Indy:

If he was fast asleep in a stolen car with a gun in the middle of the day whilst waiting to break people from court custody then he didn't have the amount of adrenaline you might expect from someone who wasn't involved in gang activity.

In reply to neilh:


Lotas of figures out there about numbers of firearms officetrs and it's all apple and orabges: very hard to get figures that compare like with like.

I have seen figures for the Met of about 2200 reduced from 2800.

In Scotland the figures drift around between about 270 and 440. The press have been quite active in pursuing this matter in Scotland and there is an article in The National today that notes how those affairs have eroded public trust in Police Scotland. Our brand new Chief Constable is a former commander of specialist operations at the Metropolitan Police so not expecting much in the way of change.

You are going to get different answers for number ever trained or number routinely deployed armed, or number deployed in ARV, or with or without diplomatic protection included. Then you have different forces such as Met, City, BTP, and MoD who could overlap around London.

There could be an element of not allowing the enemy to know the true force against them. However, I think it is far more likely that the principles of Open Government are wasted on the monarchs of this empire.

In reply to Jim Fraser:

Which police have diplomatic protection?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Perhaps the reference is to the royal and diplomatic protection texams.

In reply to rockjedi12345:

Maybe, I'm not sure of the relevance.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Think they are commenting about diplomatic protection officers are often armed.

In reply to Jim Fraser:

In a way you would expect the number of firearms officers in major citys with decent airports to be high.Just smacks of common and logistical sense. Out in the sticks it should be low almost to the point of non-existent.

In reply to Jim Fraser:

I don't think anyone has mentioned the Civil Nuclear Constabulary who protect nuclear power stations? They are highly trained and heavily armed, the intention being to contain an attack on a power station until reinforcements arrive. Their website indicates that there are about 1000 of them.

In reply to Indy:

and all posted from a position of complete ignorance.

You do not know the facts - so all you're posting is supposition.

The question to be asked is "did the officer act reasonably"? I would say that if someone left the house with a gun, imitation or not (it does not matter if it was an imitation) then they forfeited the right to the Dixon of Dock Green approach to policing.

In reply to KevinD:

They're not police and not what we would refer to as firearms officers. They're not under the control of our government (the foreign ones, and ours wouldn't have diplomatic protection anyway) and they have a quite specific role.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


ermm yes they are as can be seen by the nice red police cars in London. There is a specific diplomatic protection branch who are firearm trained members of the Met police and will often be armed. Whilst their main job is protecting diplomats I would be somewhat surprised if they didnt have a secondary role of providing support as and when needed.
Which was what Jim Fraser was referring to about the count of armed police officers in London being somewhat vague.
The Mod police are similar. They also are routinely armed and are used in some parts of London.

In reply to KevinD:

I don't know what Jim was referring to, hence the question. I'm happy for you to answer for him though, ta.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

In reply to rockjedi12345:


If they murder someone, yes.
jk

In reply to rockjedi12345:



If I recall correctly, the armed officers here were told (by superiors or whoever was on the radio) that de Menezes was a danger and (probably) armed and carrying explosives - as in being a suicide bomber).
The armed officers did what was necessary (in their view) to prevent detonation of such a suicide bomb.
(We must assume this to be correct, as no-one can tell what goes on in some-ones mind).

However those persons who wrongly identified de Menezes were in my mind guilty of his death, in precisely the same way that someone carelessly driving would be.
The higher-ups have been guilty of many of the screw-ups over the years, and they always seem to be the ones who are best at covering it up, or arranging their early retirement - frequently abroad - at high speed before any police investigation begins.
Said investigations appear to be delayed to aid their flight.

In reply to Mike Highbury:

Very good, but you missed "if".

In reply to KevinD:


I may be wrong, but I suspect that the ModPlod can't be used in civil situations. With the Civil Nuclear Constabulary as mentioned by Trangia, it's a bit less clear. They do assist the normal police and patrol the surrounding communities, but the primary role is to defend nuclear sites.

When Derrick Bird went on a shooting spree in 2010 the CNC were ordered to secure the Sellafield site and not engage him in case it was a diversionary attack by terrorists prior to attacking Sellafield. Hence Bird was able to drive round unmolested instead of vanishing in a hail of 5.56mm. Therefore I wouldn't include the CNC as being able to deploy in support of the civil police.

In reply to Ridge:
"Police shouldn't shoot marauding gunmen on sight, but it's Ok for the Army to rock up and blat away? "

As someone who has respect for the police and the job they do I am simply saying that if we are to preserve the valuable relationship that exists between the civil police and society we need to be careful that their role is limited to preservng life and that means being rather careful to take extreme care not to kill innocent/the wrong persons. To deploy paramilitary police with special ,immunities is not going to help that as it changes the way we will perceive police.
I'm not objecting to armed police operations per se, only that using them to seek out and kill people endangers our respect for them.

It could have been my child killed without opportunity to speak on that tube, and I'll never consent to policing like that. I accept the chance any of us could be killed in a shooting incident by either side, but not execution of a suspect without ID.
Everyone knows the army are there to shoot if necessary and that they are trained in the final analysis to kill people.


BTW a general comment - whoever invented that terrible expression "shoot to kill" really confused the issue. What people were objecting to was a "shoot first ask questions later" policy, a different concept entirely and one that can still be justifiable in certain circumstances - eg where someone is obviously threatening someone else with really serious harm or death.

In reply to Ridge:


Dunno about that since they are civil police force unlike the military police. For central London they are the ones guarding some of the government buildings (guess Mod building and some others).

In reply to wercat:


No arguments there.


Has that been suggested? I don't think there's been any serious suggestion of paramilitaries with immunity from the law.


Unfortunately the policing methods used at present are not compatible with dealing with heavily armed groups intent on inflicting mass casualties on the general public. Expecting a moderately trained officer who acts as a community constable for the vast bulk of his time to suddenly turn into some supercool killer won't work. Therefore there is probably a need, as in France, to have a parallel organisation solely trained in these scenarios.



The army are not trained to operate in civilian scenarios. That is the role of the police.


True.

In reply to Ridge:

On the assumption that such a threat exists, of course.

In reply to Mike Highbury:

On the balance of probabilities I think that's a fairly safe assumption.

In reply to neilh:


... where the number of firearms per head of population is higher than anywhere else!

In reply to Jim Fraser:



Derek bird happened in a rural location
Rahul moat rural location
Dunblane whilst a town is in a rural location
Hungerford is also a rural area

Just some of the most notorious incidents although large towns Dunblane and Hungerford seem to me to be in rural areas although close to larger towns such as swindon reading etc

In reply to Ridge:

Correct. However, across the British Armed Forces there are major differences in the roles of different formats of infantry and the environments that they are trained to clear and control.

Dusty hot places have been a major distraction for some time. That has been unhelpful from the point of view of direct defence and security of the UK. In an undermanned situation, everyone from mess stewards to infantry has had to get their head round IED and rocket attacks. Current thinking moves us away from that.

The Army will have a skill set for conventional war. They will also have a few hundreds people who have a far broader remit. Elsewhere there are others with military skill sets based around operating in congested spaces full of fragile assets and non-combatants.

Deployment of armed troops on the British mainland will usually be about posturing and is unlikely to involve a firefight. A couple of tracked vehicles turning up in key places now and again to show we are doing something.