[Closed] Police shoot man in London. "Intelligence led operation".

The report is thin on details. It might not even be 'terrorist' related but gang/drugs instead.

I don't much care for the term "intelligence led". The fact that they use makes me believe that a "stupidity led operation" is a real thing, and that someone might get shot during one.

🙂

Everything is terrorist related. Until it turns out it isn't, after all

[b]PANIIIIIIIIIIIIIIC!!!!!!!!!![/b]

I do like that we still get to read your posts before your bedtime, BD 🙂

Coffee on keyboard.

The pedant in me hates the way the police say intelligence when they mean information.

"We've got intelligence that..."

No, you don't. You've got information. What you do with that information demonstrates whether you've got intelligence or not.

[img] /revision/latest?cb=20130618134601[/img]

It's all in the game , yo!

The pedant in me hates the way the police say intelligence when they mean information.

The pedant in me requires that I show the Oxford dictionary of intelligence disagrees with you.

The collection of information of military or political value:

police and intelligence in the same sentence? most plod I know are not the sharpest tools in the box.

It added the operation was not related to terrorism

apparently

Says on the BBC page it wasn't related to terrorism.

I would presume drugs or gang related instead but it's all just guess work until a full statement is released.

The pedant in me requires that I show the Oxford dictionary of intelligence disagrees with you

I disagree with them 😉

bencooper - Member
The pedant in me hates the way the police say intelligence when they mean information.

"We've got intelligence that..."

No, you don't. You've got information. What you do with that information demonstrates whether you've got intelligence or not.

Information is generally unfiltered or unevaluated data, intelligence is the post process of information gathering which intelligently determines whether information should be acted upon.

Intelligence led; we shot someone who was unarmed, we are pretty annoyed as someone told us he had a shooter.

[i]Eyewitnesses say man came running out of house with a gun before police shot him.[/i]

Listen guys I don't think you should be being rude about the police like this, after all, they might shoot you.

operation kestrel

Eyewitnesses say man came running out of house with a gun before police shot him

Yeah, but it was possible that the gun was only a replica or might ven have been unloaded, so the police will still be castigated as MURDERERS by 'certain sections of the community' (of course, if it turns out that the 'eyewitness' was talking bollox, this will all be the polices fault as well)

There should be riots! But its cold out.

Mr Smith, police and intelligence in the same sentence? most plod I know are not the sharpest tools in the box.

That's funny because the photographers I know are all quite clever (just not the ones who thing giving guns to 13 yr old kids for christmas is a good idea)

so the police will still be castigated as MURDERERS by 'certain sections of the community

what, the bit of the community that doesn't like the cops killing folk unnecessarily you mean?

While I'm happy to give the cops the benefit of the doubt every time, the Met especially have shown time and time and time and time again that when it comes to press manipulation, spinning, victim blaming, and when that all fails, just plain 'ole lying through their teeth: when they've ****ed it up...They bow to no one.

whether it's knocking people over in riots, mounting illegal intelligence operations on families of victims, shooting unarmed people, and shooting wholly innocent people, their record isn't stellar...

Perhaps he got mistaken for a Brazilian electrician...

Eyewitnesses say man came running out of house with a gun before police shot him.

all of which is irrelevant.. two weeks before xmas and somewhere a mum has lost a son a kid maybe has lost a dad.. dont matter how bad a person he may have been he was once 6 years old and bright eyed 12 and a cheeky blighter and the apple of someones eye..

any life lost through violence is a tragedy..

[quote=nickc ]

so the police will still be castigated as MURDERERS by 'certain sections of the community

Not a black and white issue - I have the same suspicions as the rest of you about a statement by a witness favourable to the police. However if it does turn out to be true, then I don't have a huge problem with them shooting somebody waving a gun around whether it turns out to be a fake or not. Which is more than can be said for some people, which I presume is what ninfan is alluding to. Whilst you'd be a fool to believe the police story on everything, you'd be equally a fool to condemn them for everything, when the majority of the time they do a good job (and particularly in the case of firearms officers, sometimes a dangerous one).

qui custodiet ipsos custodes

However if it does turn out to be true, then I don't have a huge problem with them shooting somebody waving a gun around whether it turns out to be a fake or not.

Me neither.

However.

The cops mess it up, and when they do, they go to extraordinary lengths to cover it up, blame others, lie, and perjure themselves in efforts to duck responsibility for their actions. I hope this case doesn't turn out to be another.

I suspect that only happens in a tiny minority of cases - the trouble is, they do tend to be high profile ones, and certainly often ones where such cover ups are despicable.

Too true totalshell.

I suspect that only happens in a tiny minority of cases

I'm sure you're right. I've a mate who's a armed cop, and she's never once fired a shot in anger, as she rightly suggests most of the time, the sight of the cops turning up with machine guns and pistols is enough to make most people with half a brain stop whatever is they're doing, and follow "very carefully" every instruction given to them...

She is BTW, the harshest critic I know of the Met and it's reputation...

We ask armed officers to expose themselves to physical danger and serious legal repercussions. In order to avoid the former they are sometimes a bit quick on the trigger and then in order to avoid the consequences of the latter, they resort to covering it up.

I think we should acknowledge the fact that they are sometimes going to screw up and set a legal framework that acknowledges that but balances it with independent investigations and a due care and diligence responsibility on behalf of the officers concerned.

Its good to see we're all chewing on the meat of the incident and not going off on a tangent about language and police behaviour..... 🙄

There is no meat to discuss.

...two weeks before xmas and somewhere a mum has lost a son...

That mum will be under surveillance now, they will be digging/making up anything to discredit her and her family for when she starts asking questions.

Sad state of affairs when this is one of the first things that crosses my mind when the Met are involved.

Gangs and drugs related according to some news ...

Its good to see we're all chewing on the meat of the incident and not going off on a tangent about language and police behaviour...

It's a discussion forum, not a GCSE oral exam. There is nothing wrong with letting the discussion flow in whatever direction people want to take it.

The decision line between shoot/don't shoot in a dynamic situation can be extremely small and very very short time wise.

For example the difference can be a short as a person holding a gun at their side and then bringing it up level to point it. You try holding your hand at your pocket then raising sharply and pointing your finger at someone. i bet you could do that in a lot less than a second. Where an officer maybe was in a no shoot decision position whilst that hand is down, they have the time it takes for the hand to come up and point to reassess the whole situation and maybe change to a shoot decision. That decision taken in less than a second then will get weeks worth of scrutiny by others who weren't there.

I am in no way justifying the actions in this article . . . I wasn't there . . . but I think people just don't realise the factors involved in a firearms incident and make uninformed assumptions.

Good intelligence, good.

[img] [/img]

That decision taken in less than a second then will get weeks worth of scrutiny by others who weren't there.

I don't think anyone dismisses how incredibly pressured that must be. The problem comes when if having got that decision wrong, instead of putting their hands up and admitting it, they often go to extraordinary lengths to cover it up. Hence the widely held public mistrust of firearms incidents that involve the Met.

I don't think anyone dismisses how incredibly pressured that must be. The problem comes when if having got that decision wrong, instead of putting their hands up and admitting it, they often go to extraordinary lengths to cover it up. Hence the widely held public mistrust of firearms incidents that involve the Met.

The problem also comes when the media speculate and look for answers to keep the 24 hour news cycle going - therefore the police get accused of a cover up if they refuse to provide information, just as much as they get accused of a cover up if they say something and it later turns out to have been wrong. Of course this is further fuelled by rent-a-gobs and 'community leaders' jumping up and down accusing the police of heavy handed policing/unlawful use of violence/refusal to engage with the 'community'/racism/murder before any of the facts have been substantiated.

Disappointed to see all the keyboard know it alls second guessing and assuming a mistake and a coverup the minute a report hits the press. I hope you are not the same users who will no doubt jump on the "how did they miss the opportunity...." bandwagon if one day an armed response officer doesn't shoot and there is a different kind of tragedy.

This isn't the 80s and 90s when the Police had less effective training and controls. I met a lot of firearms officers when I worked at a gym near Gatwick. They were all incredibly bright and articulate, and knew the potential outcome every time they went on a call, and took it incredibly responsibly.

Admitedly, this was mainly in a force who had previously got one high profile case disastrously wrong, but they had clearly stepped it up since then and learnt lessons.

Innocent until proven guilty applies to coppers as well as suspects. Unless you are man enough to take on a job with that level of responsibility, not sure you can make the call on those you expect to do it on your behalf.

Disappointed to see all the keyboard know it alls second guessing and assuming a mistake and a coverup the minute a report hits the press.

met a lot of firearms officers when I worked at a gym near Gatwick

The problem also comes when the media speculate and look for answers to keep the 24 hour news cycle going -therefore the police get accused of a cover up if they refuse to provide information

Really? I've never heard or seen any 24 hour news source ever accuse the Police of a cover-up immediately after the event, Have you? Indeed the facts about shootings are often obscured and take months to be fully revealed, often despite the Police's best efforts, and not because of them.

Perhaps he got mistaken for a Brazilian electrician...

Wrong side of the river, innit.

A big problem is that the two investigations that arise from incidents like this are at odds with each other. The first is the criminal investigation into whether an officer or officers committed a crime of any sort. The officers involved are subject to the same legal procedures and protections as anyone else suspected of a crime, which in many cases results in them receiving legal advice not to say anything to investigators, or to give limited information, in order not to incriminate themselves, which is a long established legal right. The second is the investigation which aims to establish exactly what happened and what lessons can be learnt to improve procedures. If that is to be effective it requires everyone involved to tell everything they know. If they are also under investigation as a suspect for a crime then they will often receive legal advice not to do that. How do you get round that without either offering some sort of immunity to police officers who [i]might[/i] turn out to have done something wrong in order to establish exactly what happened, or removing the normal legal protections from police officers that everyone else enjoys, that are well established in the criminal justice system? I don't know what the answer is.

[i]all of which is irrelevant.. two weeks before xmas and somewhere a mum has lost a son a kid maybe has lost a dad.. dont matter how bad a person he may have been he was once 6 years old and bright eyed 12 and a cheeky blighter and the apple of someones eye..

any life lost through violence is a tragedy..[/i]

Indeed! Alternatively he may have been an evil bastard who hurt people and was never going to change......so not tragic at all!

41 people shot by the police turned out not to be carrying fire arms in the last 10 years, 15 of which died.
How many of those 41 were brandishing knives or imitation firearms and how many behaved in a way to deliberately mislead the police to believe they were carrying firearms.

How many people have the police shot in total over the past ten years so what percentage of the total is that 41.

Just read that it was something to do with a prison break plan.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35070431

chip, from konabunny's link...

n the 41 cases where targets of police shooting had no firearm, 14 of them were carrying replica guns. No police officer in the heat of confrontation can tell the difference. The same logic applies to the 14 other cases where targets were carrying other weapons - air pistol, gas gun, knife, hatchet. How real is the threat? You have between one and three seconds to decide. Get it wrong, and the wrong person dies.

Of the remaining 13 cases, six were ac cidental discharges (five of those shot being police officers), and the remaining seven are the most disturbing of all.

Of the remaining 13 cases, six were ac cidental discharges (five of those shot being police officers)

'Accidental discharges' - Did you use my cup at brew time? BLAT!

So by my reckoning of that 41 six accidental discharges and that leaves 7 where the policemay have made the wrong call when pulling the trigger.

So that's 13 people shot out of how many thousands of times the police had to actually point there guns at someone with good reason.

I would suggest the armed police get it right far more and wrong far less than they get credit for.

there were 14,864 police firearms’ operations in the year ending March 2014...the police discharged firearms in 2 operations in the year ending March 2014; the figure has been six or less in each of the previous 5 years

On a cursory look, that's the latest published figures for E&W, from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-use-of-firearms-statistics-england-and-wales-financial-year-ending-31-march-2014/police-use-of-firearms-statistics-england-and-wales-financial-year-ending-31-march-2014

Of course not every firearms operation gets to the stage of guns being pointed at people.

That article posted by Konabunny is 14 years old.

Indeed. I quoted from it as I assumed the question above came from it.

totalshell - Member
all of which is irrelevant.. two weeks before xmas and somewhere a mum has lost a son a kid maybe has lost a dad.. dont matter how bad a person he may have been he was once 6 years old and bright eyed 12 and a cheeky blighter and the apple of someones eye..

any life lost through violence is a tragedy..

Whilst I appreciate the sentiment, in some cases, where someone chooses a life less ordinary, you live by the sword and thus die by it. A life lived in violence, especially when chosen, comes with the knowledge that it may well be a short one. I'd say whomever/whatever the person in question has become is [i]more[/i] relevant than any past left willingly behind.

any life lost through violence is a tragedy..

Not really. Sometimes evil people get back what they inflicted on others. Some deaths are a net gain for society.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13215744.Gerbo__the_short__ugly_life_of_a_gangland_enforcer/

in some cases, where someone chooses a life less ordinary, you live by the sword and thus die by it. A life lived in violence, especially when chosen, comes with the knowledge that it may well be a short one.

5 coppers accidentally shot because of NDs in 10 years?!?!?!
WTAF?

civvies eh 😉

Police repatadily shot [b]Jean Charles da Silva e de Menezes[/b] who wasn't the chap they were supposed to watch (pesky skin colour) and gave no warning, then they tried to make up a story about the whole incident and shaft the poor kids family.

[url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes ]Wiki link[/url]

5 police officers shot due to accidental discharges,
5 officers shot by colleagues or did some of them shoot themselves.

Pesky skin colour, really!

5 officers shot by colleagues or did some of them shoot themselves.

Yep, i said "Pesky skin colour"

Some people just see skin colour and let there imagainations fill in the gaps

Jean wasn't the same skin colour or race as the person the police was supposed to follow, but in the limited minds of some, all people with any colour just look the same.

One of those accidental discharges would be the Mark Duggan shooting- one of the officers managed to shoot one of the others. Which inevitably led to initial reports that Duggan had fired on the officers (which the IPCC also inevitably repeated, then took 9 days to correct)

On the plus side, amidst all the other amendments and contradictions in the official versin of events, at least this bit was definitely true: the IPCC said that the officer who fired the fatal shot had "an honest-held belief that he was in imminent danger of him and his colleagues being shot". He didn't say who by...

The shot policeman in the Duggan shooting, I don't think it was an accidental discharge as it passed through duggans arm before lodging in the officers radio..

I believe the de menezes shooting was a massive cock up, especially as de menezes was practically white, and the three men they were staking out were practically black.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-35089944

So in summary some scum were on the way to court to be sentenced for being scum.

Other scum were trying to free the first lot of scum .

One scum got shot and four more scum are in prison .

Good people 1 - Scum 0

Well, tippety-top. So pleased that everything can be cleared up this quickly.

Weird how that eyewitness who said the "scum" charged at the police with a gun seems to have disappeared, isn't it? Almost as if s/he was never there.

Makes you think...

Weird how that eyewitness who said the "scum" charged at the police with a gun seems to have disappeared, isn't it? Almost as if s/he was never there.

Members of the public spouting off to the press or anyone else who'll listen, then subsequently failing to put their money where their mouth is, is all too common unfortunately.

but in the limited minds of some, all people with any colour just look the same.

However there can be some truth to that - as you grow up your brain learns to recognize/distinguish people using certain facial features, so if you haven't been exposed to a lot of different races growing up you might have trouble distinguishing members of that race apart.

Members of the public spouting off to the press or anyone else who'll listen, then subsequently failing to put their money where their mouth is, is all too common unfortunately.

[url= http://news.sky.com/story/1605848/firearms-officer-to-be-suspended-over-shooting ]police shooter suspended[/url]

Used to be standard for the officer in such a case to be suspended pending the investigation.

Was the subject of gallows humour among the guys I knew when they had used up all their leave.

I hoped that would be the case.

Used to be standard for the officer in such a case to be suspended pending the investigation.

The highly unusual move marks an escalation in the IPCC investigation and a spokesman from Scotland Yard told The Telegraph it was "not routine".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/12050452/Police-firearms-officer-suspended-after-fatal-Wood-Green-shooting.html

Members of the public spouting off to the press or anyone else who'll listen, then subsequently failing to put their money where their mouth is, is all too common unfortunately.

I don't know to be honest. There are probably plenty on both sides of the pro/anti police line that want to have their say to the press, who in turn are desperate for material. I tend to wait and read the inquest/investigation findings.

Weird how that eyewitness who said the "scum" charged at the police with a gun seems to have disappeared, isn't it? Almost as if s/he was never there.

Did they also say he jumped a barrier on the underground?

Sometimes witnesses contradict themselves

In the Duggan inquest, Witness A (3rd December) stated that from his flat window over the road he had seen that Duggan had his hands up in the air, and was holding a blackberry when the police shot him.

However it later came out that when earlier interviewed by a BBC journalist (who made shorthand notes) he had said that he initially thought that Duggan was holding a gun, but decided after reading the newspapers that it must have been a blackberry and that when Duggan was shot it 'went flying'.

no blackberry was ever found, but two mobile phones were found, one in his pocket, the other in the minicab, (and neither of them black IIRC)

Not related specifically to this incident, or today's news re the suspension, but also thinking back to the aftermath of the Harry Stanley case, I wonder where we will end up if a police officer is prosecuted or convicted for murder after a momentary mistake? Given that firearms duties are entirely voluntary, how many do we think would carry on doing it if they risk a life sentence for one mistake? Yet at the same time the importance of scrutinising such incidents and the responsibility of police officers to act lawfully can't be overemphasised.

...and sometimes witnesses contradict each other, like Witness B, whose video showed that four police officers' statements were consistent with each other but inconsistent with the truth: http://www.tottenhamjournal.co.uk/news/crime-court/mark_duggan_inquest_coroner_leaves_jury_to_resolve_stark_problem_of_contradictory_police_evidence_1_3103080