You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Am I in a minority where I feel that fewer police carrying guns is a good thing? And that the people surrendering their guns are possibly some of the least appropriate to be carrying them?
I never feel safe when I see police officers decked out with sub-machine guns (or any gun, actually) and struggle to see what a machine gun brings to a situation that a Taser doesn't.
Having been an armed police officer, I have to disagree with your "struggle to see what a machine gun brings to a situation that a Taser doesn't"
I wouldn't want to confront someone with a gun with a Taser. Tasers are not as effective as I imagine you think they are, they are limited on range, they are not effective against thick clothing, people that are fat or thin, and they are not very accurate either.
struggle to see what a machine gun brings to a situation that a Taser doesn’t.
I'm not a cop or military veteran, but, in cases where I had to deal with criminals armed with firearms, I'd rather have a firearm than a Taser. Sadly, we don't live in the 1950s anymore, with unarmed bobbies popping round for a nice cup of tea while they did their rounds, or whatever it was they did back then.
struggle to see what a machine gun brings to a situation that a Taser doesn’t.
Have you not seen footage of people hardly effected by a taser?
What range does a taser have?
They are not "machine guns".
Have you ever heard the phrase "taking a knife to a gun fight"?
The police have a duty of care to their employees, they have to do a risk assessment of their activities, the same as any employer. I would like to see a risk assessment that would allow sending them to deal with a person with a firearm, armed with tasers and batons.
I usually feel safer
I do too.
Don't get me wrong, the need for a firearm in public is not a Good Thing, but the response to have folk there who can if needed use them to protect us is a Good Thing.
I am really torn and need to understand more about this (live) case to understand why the officer has been charged.
As well as the points above about taser not being effecive in many situations, remember that UK police shoot almost nobody. You read about situations like the recent case precisely because they are so rare in the UK.
There were 18,395 firearms operations in the year ending 31 March 2023, a similar number to the year ending 31 March 2022 (18,257).
Of the 18,395 firearms operations, 92% (16,971) involved an armed response vehicle (ARV), the same proportion as the years ending 31 March 2022 and 2021 (92%).
There were 10 incidents in which police firearms were intentionally discharged (fired) at persons in the year ending 31 March 2023. This number was 4 in the year ending 31 March 2022.
Compare that 10 discharges with pretty much any other country and you should feel very safe indeed.
I think we need armed police without a doubt.
But I am at a loss as to what the current action is for. Surely if an unarmed man is shot and killed then the person responsible for the killing / murder, should be held accountable in a court of law?
Is there some portions of this story that is missing? He was in a car previously used by people known to carry weapons, but as far as I’m aware there needs to be a distinct threat to life, the press reporting doesn’t appear to show that threat?
I'd love to see reduction in the numbers police carrying guns. Anyone carrying guns! Even though we might have "foreign agents"/drug gangs tooled up how many situations require an armed response? It's all a very chicken and egg type of argument but intelligence led policing should be able to reduce the number of guns on the streets. I'm generally against punitive jail sentences but carrying gun is always a choice I'd of thought, so life sentences for possession let alone use might be justifiable.
I assume that some of these guys that are handing in their weapons know a little more about what happened than we do. I would imagine that they have decided that the risk to their own liberty now outweighs the extra cash/job satisfaction that they gained from being part of the armed units. Not sure why this would make them the 'least appropriate' types to be armed in the first place. Quite a reasoned response IMO.
but as far as I’m aware there needs to be a distinct threat to life, the press reporting doesn’t appear to show that threat?
The reporting is he tried to ram his way through the police cars and the photos show quite a bit of damage.
Whilst it is traditional to pretend people using a car as a weapon are just having a laugh and just require a slap on the wrist it may well be one case where it was treated appropriately.
That said the CPS will have seen the footage from multiple bodycams and vehicle cameras and dont seem to have accepted the legitimate force so the jury will need to decide on that.
As for taser vs carbine. The obvious ones are range, ability to have another shot if you miss, bit crap in winter when everyone is bundled up and so on.
I’m remaining completely open minded on this. Lack of reporting into the detail is understandable and expected but Met cover up is also similarly expected.
I’m reassured by cops with guns in parts of the UK and as STW-typical demographic have zero expectation I’ll ever be shot by a British cop which can’t be said for other countries (unlikely to very-low expectation).
This occurred near us - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/nov/02/police-killing-of-yassar-yaqub-on-m62-was-lawful-inquest-finds.
Potential parallels.
There were 10 incidents in which police firearms were intentionally discharged (fired) at persons in the year ending 31 March 2023. This number was 4 in the year ending 31 March 2022.
I know the police are frequently taking bifters right now, and indeed with some justification, but this is an amazing statistic and one that still points to the majority of police doing a good job at policing by consent rather than fear.
I would imagine that they have decided that the risk to their own liberty now outweighs the extra cash/job satisfaction
I believe that armed response officers don't get any extra for the risk they take (some would call it job satisfaction but given stats above if the expectation of job satisfaction is a euphemism for "plugging perps on a daily basis" there's not a lot of that going on)
Appreciating there are folks with actual relevant experience on this thread; but when the news this morning talked about the chief of the Met insisting that "the way in which police are held to account must change", my first thought was "no it mustn't". In theory the police serve at the will of the public or similar (right?), and so therefore if an unarmed person is shot dead by a police officer, there has to be investigation and, if relevant, accountability.
The more US approach, where the police are there to enforce law on the public, would imply less accountability for the police and more of a view that the police are the law, therefore they can't be held accountable by the public. I think as a legal approach it's internally consistent (albeit various factors mean it doesn't work very well in the US specifically); but it's quite different from the legal standing of the UK police, in my limited understanding
...or something...
Do they really need assault weapons though.
I would much rather see more police with side arms than a few with H&Kmp5 rifles.
If someone is pointing a gun at you , and you are pointing one back the situation is neutral. Just how many situations would say a Glock not be enough.we are not America with thousands of ak or ar type of full auto weapons everywhere. Almost all shotguns carry 2 cartridges and are shorter range weapons.
Euro cops also carry pistols routinely.
Alot of firearms officers are called out to a pissed up hard man brandishing a fake samurai sword as Shayna has left with the kids and he's gone on a bender down the pub.
Next thing you know it's like the Russian s have parachuted in and a mile area is cordened off with a dozen shouting police in ballistic vests and helmets stand 50 meters away.
That's alot of firepower for drunk Darren and his wobbly samurai sword, when 2 police with Glock17 would probably be enough to deal with the situation quickly and quietly without escalation to ww3.
Plus there's having to wait 20 mins for the arv team to gear up and arrive on scene.
But I live in a quiet corner of rural Hampshire, not mosside. Or Croydon so the reality may be NATO rifles in low numbers would be better than side arms in greater numbers, this is just my take on it , your opinion or experience may differ, which is absolutely fine.
No I am not a police man , or served military person.
@scuttler - The Yasser Yaqub case is very different, for one thing Yaqub was armed and moved to point his weapon at an armed officer
Person charging at you with a 2-foot machete v you and a Taser?
You really don't want armed military personnel on the streets in "normal" times, they simply aren't trained in the same way as the police
Am I in a minority where I feel that fewer police carrying guns is a good thing?
Well for sure I expect we'd all prefer to live in a society it wasn't required. In the reality we live in they are required, I don't think the UK police are over-armed either, it's still a small minority and they have a lot of training & assessments (both initial and on-going). It's not like in the US...
As for this specific incident - it is strange to me CPS have gone with a murder charge, given they generally charge based on what they think has a fair chance of a resulting prosecution I'm assuming there's evidence this wasn't just the officer being a little hasty pulling the trigger. That said it's pretty pointless speculating at this stage. It also wouldn't surprise me if the officers turning their weapons in don't know the full story either (or have been given a version of it that might not match reality).
For sure I can understand them not wanting to be put in a position of facing a murder charge if they just made the wrong decision in a split-second, having follow procedure up to that point, why put yourself at that risk (on top of risking your life every time you go out on an operation)? But if that's not the situation and the reality is, if you can demonstrate you followed procedure (issuing warnings etc.) and it was just that momentary decision-making that was at fault that you'll be protected from prosecution then I'm not sure what the officers that have turned in their weapons actually expect.
the CPS will have seen the footage from multiple bodycams and vehicle cameras and dont seem to have accepted the legitimate force so the jury will need to decide on that.
This was my take on it too. I doubt we, in this forum, know enough of the details of this case to make an informed judgement on it, let alone start to second-guess every potential outcome.
Overall, I'd say that the current level of gun carrying and usage by our police forces seems to be pretty well balanced. I'm not sure that relying on the armed forces whenever weapons are required is a good move.
I would much rather see more police with side arms than a few with H&Kmp5 rifles.
I would prefer rifles/semi auto submachine gun if I am an innocent bystander.
They are a shedload more accurate so less likely the cop will accidently hit me.
The greater range also means the police can be at a safer distance which means less chance of them feeling threatened enough to shoot.
Plus there’s having to wait 20 mins for the arv team to gear up and arrive on scene.
There was a horrible accident in our village last month.
A car crushed someone against a wall when turning round. Because it was a vehicle that had left the road and hit someone, it is treat as a potential act of terrorism.
We are about 7 miles from the A1, within 20 minutes there were 3 unmarked police cars at the scene, in addition to the marked cars, paramedics etc.
Where these came from I have no idea, how they got there so quick I have no clue, they must be loads of them scattered about. If they are as quick getting to a relatively remote village, the response time in urban areas must be very quick indeed.
But I am at a loss as to what the current action is for. Surely if an unarmed man is shot and killed then the person responsible for the killing / murder, should be held accountable in a court of law?
If you're the Police marksman you have to make a quick decision to shoot or not.
They are saying that if you are going to hold them to account in the same way as the general public, then its not a responsibility they want to take. Hence with this case a lot of them are walking away from the job.
You have to accept in these high pressure environments, its impossible to be correct 100% of the time, so they need to be given special dispensation.
I think the troubling thing here isn't that there are armed police units, but that a proportion of those that man those units want to force the justice system to turn a blind eye to their actions. Whether the actions were legal or not needs to be established by the authorities, in court if necessary.
The fact that these officers are willing to try and force the justice system to back down in examining these actions is extremely worrying IMO.
The Yasser Yaqub case is very different, for one thing Yaqub was armed and moved to point his weapon at an armed officer
Foresight and hindsight. I can only expect in both cases the police suspected (but didn’t know) firearms might be present up to and including the point shots were fired, hence the reference to ‘potential parallels’. But frankly I have no idea.
The fact is that most of us, myself included, will never understand the pressures and requirements for the split second decisions that armed officers take. I'm also absolutely amazed that given what must be overwhelming pressure to protect themselves, their colleagues, and the public they only intentionally discharged their weapons 10 times.
Given the situations in which they seem to be deployed, I would also prefer that they turn up well equipped (and certainly better equipped than the people they are dealing with), in appropriate numbers, and feeling like they are able to perform their job.
Speculation seems pointless to me, but I can't say I'm surprised that firearms officers are feeling unsupported. I guess we'll find out whether this is a justifiable stance to take in due course.
They are a shedload more accurate so less likely the cop will accidently hit me.
I'm not sure that's really true, I don't think MP5's are particularly accurate One of the injuries of the London Bridge attack in 2017 for instance was an innocent bystander caught in the cross fire. I often see those armed cops in v crowded airport terminals and wonder what the body count would be if they started firing at terrorists or criminals in a closed environment.
I don't feel particularly safe around armed cops TBH, I don't know what their marksmanship is like, I don't know what their training is like or when they last had any, I don't know if they've ever had to use a weapon 'in anger' before...All of which has a bearing on any incident that they may be involved in.
theotherjonv - I would have thought job satisfaction for armed offiers is resolving situations daily without having to "plug perps".
The fact that these officers are willing to try and force the justice system to back down in examining these actions is extremely worrying IMO.
I thought that there was an investigation by the IOPC whenever a police firearm is fired?
Is that not the case?
FWIW, I don't think they should avoid the justice system and the CPS must have a reason to be acting on this case.
struggle to see what a machine gun brings to a situation that a Taser doesn’t.
I can see an issue where shooting someone holding a gun with their finger on the trigger with a device that in some cases causes violent jerky involuntary muscle spasms
I don’t think MP5’s are particularly accurate
Accurate enough as long as you are only firing individual rounds or 2-3 in burst & nobody ever really fires on full auto. Anymore than that the weapon can pull up & away quite strongly.
I thought that there was an investigation by the IOPC whenever a police firearm is fired?
Yes I think so & IIRC that officer is on restricted duties till the outcome is determined.
I never feel safe when I see police officers decked out with sub-machine guns (or any gun, actually) and struggle to see what a machine gun brings to a situation that a Taser doesn’t.
We had an armed siege on the house opposite the other week, a chap with mental health problems had called for help and probably said he had a gun.
Massive show of force from the armed police, but they were the most professional, courteous people I have ever watched. The whole thing was a text book example of flawless policing. Huge respect to the squad.
Eventually the chap came out, was searched very politely and then handed over to paramedics waiting up the road. They couldn't have been nicer to the chap (given that they had 6 automatic rifles pointed at him and were behind bullet proof shields).
Am I in a minority where I feel that fewer police carrying guns is a good thing?
Living in rural Derbyshire, I see less of the overly armed police so I'm reminded more of the potential out there when I see them ... so I feel safer in a less safe kind of way.
Then that little bit of my subconscious kicks in with the challenge "Go on, you could get that gun off him, easy..."
I’ve trained alongside them and attended incidents with their presence. The selection process is very high and the training strict. The process for them to discharge a weapon is extremely strict.
I’d not want them just to have tasers in the potential situations I could attend with them.
@MSP. Everyone AFO knows what needs to be justified. The handing of tickets in isn’t to force anything at all. What we’re talking about here is a charge of murder. Which means the CPS are saying the officer had the mens rea. That’s why they don’t want to carry, because it means any police shooting will go down that road of premeditation. I’d have done the same if I were still there. Got a family to think of and don’t get paid any more for the risk
@Kato,that's impressive .👍
I was really thinking about when I go abroad, and see cops with sidearms strolling about the place, and immediately start thinking about that sort of thing. It reminds me that in the UK at least you need to choose to qualify
I got hard stopped on the M62 a few years back (Long story; they though I might be a drug dealer) ,and the armed cops were there along with the 5 other cop cars it took. I don't think they added much to the experience if I'm honest.
This is interesting.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-where-police-dont-carry-guns
The UK has a population of over 67 million people. It’s hard to imagine how the police force maintains law and order without guns. The UK has continuously worked to present its police force as approachable and where civilians can get help.
Compared to other G7 countries, the UK has the lowest number of reported fatal incidences between suspected criminals and the police. Most police here prefer to be seen as guardians of the people and not criminal hunters.
The selection process is very high
Yet Wayne Couzens was selected.
I thought that there was an investigation by the IOPC whenever a police firearm is fired?
Yes.
It was the IOPC who concluded it may have been broke the law and hence handed over to the CPS to decide whether to prosecute.
theotherjonv – I would have thought job satisfaction for armed offiers is resolving situations daily without having to “plug perps”.
That was my point, probably missed in attempted humour. The point was that if they thought their job satisfaction includes shooting at people regularly then they'll be disappointed. I expect the vast majority of AR officers never have to discharge at another human, let alone take a life, and they'll be perfectly happy about that.
bit crap in winter when everyone is bundled up and so on.
Or inside a car!
I assume that some of these guys that are handing in their weapons know a little more about what happened than we do.
They'll certainly know rumours or speculation, whereas we only have media reports.
I would imagine that they have decided that the risk to their own liberty now outweighs the extra cash/job satisfaction that they gained from being part of the armed units.
I'm not sure its quite as simple as that. There's always been a risk that if they illegally discharged a firearm that they could be prosecuted (just as battering someone in the cells could get you jailed). But armed response officers have traditionally stuck very closely together and senior officers have supported the split second life or death decision position. Presumably they are not so much worried that if they murder someone they might be prosecuted, but concerned that their colleagues and superiors aren't going to cover up mistakes the way they may have in the past.
Not sure why this would make them the ‘least appropriate’ types to be armed in the first place. Quite a reasoned response IMO.
I'm not sure I agree. I think if you were carrying a gun last week in the belief that the system would always protect you, and this week are saying you can't risk it when no law or rule has changed you certainly give the impression that perhaps you were hovering too close to the boundaries of the law/rules.
@Kato - I'm just assuming that, as the CPS doesn't follow a similar process for every shooting, something makes this one different. I don't expect to know all of the details of why, possibly even after any court case. I'd be surprised if all of those handing in their weapons were fully informed.
Compared to other G7 countries, the UK has the lowest number of reported fatal incidences between suspected criminals and the police. Most police here prefer to be seen as guardians of the people and not criminal hunters.
The selection process is very high
Yet Wayne Couzens was selected.
Which simply suggests that the selection process is not infallible, not that it isn't highly effective and vastly superior than that of many other countries.
It was something like 100 officers out of 3,000 IIRC?
Not likely to affect operational coverage as much as reporting is inferring anyway?
It was something like 100 officers out of 3,000 IIRC?
I believe that it is about a 100 out of over 6,000 officers.
Edit: They are probably mostly in the Met which I guess might have a disproportionate effect, although I suspect not huge.
The selection process is very high
Yet Wayne Couzens was selected.
But nobody said it was perfect or couldn’t be improved
@MSP. Everyone AFO knows what needs to be justified. The handing of tickets in isn’t to force anything at all. What we’re talking about here is a charge of murder. Which means the CPS are saying the officer had the mens rea. That’s why they don’t want to carry, because it means any police shooting will go down that road of premeditation. I’d have done the same if I were still there. Got a family to think of and don’t get paid any more for the risk.
It doesn't mean any police shooting will go to a prosecution, it means that any police shooting which doesn't look to have met the correct threshold will be properly examined by the justice system.
I think their are times where the police (and other public services) need extra protection, but there are also times where accountability needs to be transparent and maybe even held to a higher standard than joe blogs.
What we’re talking about here is a charge of murder. Which means the CPS are saying the officer had the mens rea.
rea?
Pre-mediation - not the same as the French cop then https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66040464
It is the Met though. Nothing surprises me about that institution, sadly.
Hasn't the MET asked the army (SAS) for help replacing armed officers? Which doesn't fill me with joy really, weren't the Jean Charles de Menezes shooters rumoured to be army (special forces?)
Which doesn’t fill me with joy really, weren’t the Jean Charles de Menezes shooters rumoured to be army (special forces?)
Not for normal policing duties I believe, for armed protection such as Downing Street. Although only if really need which apparently isn't the case currently.
Ernie is right, they will do protection work. And it won’t be the SAS. I remember the last time they used the army as I was there. We got the stable hands from the horse artillery that hadn’t picked up a weapon since basic. I asked one not to point their rifle at me, but was told “it’s okay mate it’s not loaded”. MACA is not a good situation to be in and I hope they don’t need it
Any shooting needs to be examined. We all have the right to use lethal force for self defence if we believed at that moment it is reasonable to do so, it's how far you extend the "benefit of the doubt" to a Police officer protecting "us".
As a general point, i feel we either run the risk of the Police mistakenly killing someone and find a fair system to deal with "professional errors" as we do with surgeons, or we accept there won't be armed officers and innocent people will die if unarmed officers can't stop them. Everyone's view of that balance will differ.
No point speculating on this case as we haven't the necessary information. The fact that they were charged suggests normal regs weren't followed, or the threshold has been changed, which should only have happened after consultation and I can see why a few officers may not want that responsibility with less legal support available.
As a general point, i feel we either run the risk of the Police mistakenly killing someone and find a fair system to deal with “professional errors” as we do with surgeons, or we accept there won’t be armed officers and innocent people will die if unarmed officers can’t stop them. Everyone’s view of that balance will differ.
Indeed. Has done wonders for aviation.
Ernie is right, they will do protection work. And it won’t be the SAS.
The Guardian link suggests it's for counter-terrorism and specifically says the SAS?
From the article: "The Guardian understands that the Met asked for soldiers from the SAS to be put on standby for deployment against terrorist suspects"
I suspect specialist units are on permanent standby for terrorist incidents, the press are milking this for clickbait headlines
It's a more nuanced debate perhaps than is the officers "downing tools" are presenting it as. There is a need for Armed response units to be available as part of the UK's various police forces. However There's also a need for accountability/responsibility to be part of normal operational procedures. Part of the problem is the culture of impunity that some officers apparently feel they operate under, this ultimately undermines public trust.
Someone who might have to discharge a weapon as part of their duties, needs to be prepared for the consequences, at the same time they shouldn't be held up in their response to a literal 'life or death' situation. It's far easier to discuss these things in the abstract, than make the real world split second decisions resulting in someone's injury or death.
Ultimately officers who aren't fully prepared for the responsibility/accountability that goes with wielding firearms in public, probably shouldn't sign up for an armed response unit.
I don't personally want us to end up with a culture like the states where more/all officers are routinely armed and wrongful shooting incidents are common, under-prosecuted and sadly just accepted by the majority. Firearms are the exception not the rule here, and their use needs to come with appropriate governance and post event reviewing/investigation (and where appropriate prosecution) to ensure British police develop and maintain a "proportionate use" culture with firearms.
the press are milking this
Yeah, probably, If I'm honest, I'd rather have cops do armed cop things and the army stick to army things. 👍
@nickc I can only tell you my experience from actually doing it. The papers are ramping it up, but the SAS have more important things to do. If they do use MACA the soldiers will back fill the less important AFO roles, the CT and ARV stuff will be prioritised by the Police.
The Guardian link suggests it’s for counter-terrorism and specifically says the SAS?
There is a hierarchy of operational activities that can be undertaken depending on training, some activities are just not doable by armed officers who normally guard buildings. So it is possible that the small number of officers who have stopped working may have a disproportionate operational impact which needs to be mitigated.
Then again it could all be cobblers put out to stir the pot
SRR might be more likely too.
Yeah, probably, If I’m honest, I’d rather have cops do armed cop things and the army stick to army things.
I actually probably lean the other way when it comes to armed protection of sites such as Downing Street.
Is there any reason why the army shouldn't be used? After all they are associated with using weapons far more than the police generally are, certainly in the UK, and they are used to protect such places as Buckingham Palace.
After all they are associated with using weapons far more than the police generally are, certainly in the UK, and they are used to protect such places as Buckingham Palace.
I suspect squaddies have far less training on the appropriate use of weapons on the streets than armed police do. There are armed police at the palace as well as the army.
and they are used to protect such places as Buckingham Palace.
They arent. Police are used as the primary protection for those locations. The military are primarily ceremonial.
Hasn’t the MET...
There's always someone who capitalises Met as if it were a three letter acronym. Which means I spend the rest of the thread mentally pronouncing it as a TLA like in that LOD show on the BBC.
There are armed police at the palace as well as the army.
Well yes that's the point, I would generally prefer to see police officers engaged in policing rather than protection work. Especially as the Met doesn't exactly have an excess number of trained police officers to engage in police work.
I don't know how many sites the army currently protects but I assume that it is a fair few. Are there problems associated with army protecting these sites? And would armed police resolve these issues?
Really interesting one this. I understand the parallels to Yassar. He (a known drug dealer) was in a car known to be carrying a loaded gun. He reached for it and was shot. An open and shut case imo.
We dont know the details of Chris Kaba but i can see someone is driving a car known to be used in an armed incident. We dont know what intelligence they have but had to chase him down for a start.
I believe that in a way its good to have the armed police like this. They should be known that every incident will be investigated but you have to assume that the person who shot Chris was in potential danger. They shouldn't be above the law but they should be protected from it and instances like this imo. The police, never mind the armed police, put their lives on the line for the rest of us. The officer now has a year or more of trauma ahead and all the impacts on their lives. Im not surprised their colleagues are downing tools.
I actually probably lean the other way when it comes to armed protection of sites such as Downing Street
Even assuming their close-range marksmanship (with sidearms/sub-machine guns) was of the same standard I imagine most incidents at Downing Street are probably mental health or protest related and I'd assume the armed police are trained to recognise that and how to de-escalate such situations. That's not really what a squaddie is trained for.
and they are used to protect such places as Buckingham Palace.
They arent.
I based my comment on someone who formerly guarded Buckingham Palace (many years ago) and he assured that whilst it wasn't publicized they were indeed armed with live rounds.
But either way the army does provide armed protection for crown property, if not all, so my point remains the same.
Edit: A Google search suggests that whilst the guards in Buckingham Palace weapons do not routinely have live ammo they do when there is a known security threat, and the ammo is also always very close by so that live rounds can be quickly accessed.
I imagine most incidents at Downing Street are probably mental health or protest related
Are there ever any incidents in Downing Street? When I was a kid anyone could drive past Number 10 and the only "protection" there was was one solitary unarmed copper standing in front of the front door.
Has a firearm ever been discharged in Downing Street? I can't recall any incidents.
Has a firearm ever been discharged in Downing Street? I can’t recall any incidents.
There was the small matter of an IRA mortar attack in 1991.
Some Background....
Some
Background…. Press reporting
The CPS have the foorage and radio details. Everything else is, at best, informed guessing.
In the US there is a principle of "qualified immunity" that seems to make it very hard to their police to be prosecuted for, well, anything. When a populist and authoritarian home secretary (though all home secretaries seem to be authoritarian) starts making comments about changing the oversight applied to the police I get a bit worried.
There was the small matter of an IRA mortar attack in 1991.
That was quite a big matter but I don't think any Downing Street police officers fired their weapons in that incident. The IRA weren't even in Downing Street as far as I can recall!
If "most incidents at Downing Street are probably mental health or protest related" they are unlikely to require an armed response.
It is the sheer quantity of armed officers protecting Number 10 which amazes me. A couple of years back I was cycling past every day on my commute and I always felt it was such a waste of precious police resources to see so many highly armed, and very bored looking, coppers guarding one person.
I always felt it was such a waste of precious police resources to see so many highly armed, and very bored looking, coppers guarding one person.
I had no idea it was solitary confinement - no wonder they all go mad
I’m surprised that a murder charge, from what little I know its incredibly difficult to shoot accurately through glass as the impact of hitting the glass deflects the trajectory. By how much I have no idea.
The part Im mot keen on is that the rest of the country has to be left more exposed to backfill in London. Why should the rest of the country have to loose its armed officers, which presumably are in proportion to the anticipated threat in different parts of the country, because of a decision in London.
Interesting that the statistics only cover incidents when a firearm is intentionally discharged, there are a lot more 'accidental' discharges, on average 20 a year...............
https://inews.co.uk/news/armed-police-uk-accidentally-fired-weapons-five-years-data-421308
I'm surprised no-one has mentioned the abysmal morale in the Met due to Tory austerity, their own misconduct in covering up the actions of sexual predators and the deranged in their own ranks, and a collapse in public confidence in London.
I find it hard to believe there would ever be a long term shortage of volunteers for these roles.
If you’re the Police marksman you have to make a quick decision to shoot or not.
They are saying that if you are going to hold them to account in the same way as the general public, then its not a responsibility they want to take. Hence with this case a lot of them are walking away from the job.
You have to accept in these high pressure environments, its impossible to be correct 100% of the time, so they need to be given special dispensation.
You know who else needs to make quick life or death decisions? Doctors. Nurses. Surgeons. Pilots. Ships' captains. Bouncers. Firefighters... There's no reason to invent special criminal procedures for police officers. If a prosecutor decides to prosecute, the court will have the opportunity to hear the context and decide whether what the accused did was reasonable.
In the US there is a principle of “qualified immunity” that seems to make it very hard to their police to be prosecuted for, well, anything.
Qualified immunity isn't anything to do with prosecution. It's about whether individual officers can be held liable in civil cases for their own unconstitutional conduct.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity
The part Im mot keen on is that the rest of the country has to be left more exposed to backfill in London. Why should the rest of the country have to loose its armed officers, which presumably are in proportion to the anticipated threat in different parts of the country, because of a decision in London.
Because cockneys are all gangsters (who love their mothers)
MSP
Full Member
I think the troubling thing here isn’t that there are armed police units, but that a proportion of those that man those units want to force the justice system to turn a blind eye to their actions. Whether the actions were legal or not needs to be established by the authorities, in court if necessary.The fact that these officers are willing to try and force the justice system to back down in examining these actions is extremely worrying IMO.
Spot on, IMHO. If the court finds it was legal then that's a considered judgment and the system has worked. But it's vital that that system is in place and allowed to work unimpeded
You know who else needs to make quick life or death decisions? Doctors. Nurses. Surgeons. Pilots. Ships’ captains
It is probably rare that the situations that they are in when making those decisions has the potential to threaten their own life?
A negligent discharge of a gun leading to the death of someone which has the possibility of being shot by the person in question needs investigating. 🤔.