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

See, you've successfully proved than anyone can misremember - even me, because it turns out that it was witness B who said it, and I was wrong in that they did find a blackberry in the car (one of the two phones)

Maybe me and the BBC journalist are both part of the conspiracy too?

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?

Well if the risk of mistakenly killing someone doesn't put them off volunteering perhaps the risk of a jail sentence won't put too many off either?

wonder where we will end up if a police officer is prosecuted or convicted for murder after a momentary mistake?

See, you've successfully proved than anyone can misremember - even me, because it turns out that it was witness B who said it, and I was wrong in that they did find a blackberry in the car (one of the two phones)

It's possible that you're part of the conspiracy. More likely the PR team at the Met Police feels comfortable making up any old shit in the first couple of hours after a dodgy shooting and feeding it to journalists miles away who are desperate to file copy...as they did with de Menezes, Duggan, Tomlinson etc.

Well that's decided later isn't it, after months of scrutiny if the court concludes the killing wasn't done lawfully in self-defence or the defence of someone else, unlike most murders where the person committing them knows at the time that what they're doing isn't lawful.

Well if the risk of mistakenly killing someone doesn't put them off volunteering perhaps the risk of a jail sentence won't put too many off either?

Yes, perhaps not.

wonder where we will end up if a police officer is prosecuted or convicted for murder after a momentary mistake?

Like when 100's of people die because an airline pilot makes a momentary mistake/misjudgement?

Or is that different?

People screw up, & always will. Just hope you don't to any great extent.

Well that's decided later isn't it, after months of scrutiny if the court concludes the killing wasn't done lawfully in self-defence or the defence of someone else, unlike most murders where the person committing them knows at the time that what they're doing isn't lawful.

I think it would be a bit different. A pilot making a mistake wouldn't face a murder charge, unless of course there was some evidence he had crashed his plane deliberately. A firearms officer who in the heat of the moment decides he needs to shoot someone could be convicted of it, if a jury subsequently decided his decision wasn't reasonable.

You're worried about what happens to armed police recruitment if an armed police officer is convicted of murder

A little, yes. After the two officers who shot Harry Stanley were suspended, 20 AFO's immediately stood down, and a further 100 out of the 400 the Met had then we're going to (in the event the suspension was overturned and it didn't get that far). It's not too hard to see something similar happening again is it? If they all decide the risk isn't worth it we could end up with none, or not enough. Who knows? I'm just saying that there's a precedent for AFO's deciding to jack it in if they see someone being, [u]in their eyes[/u], unfairly treated for just trying to do their jobs.

Yes, perhaps not.

I guess it depends what their motives for volunteering for firearms duties are, I assume few consider it to be a risk-free job.

If avoiding all personal risks was an overriding consideration then I would imagine that the police was a poor career choice - perhaps something like kindergarten teacher might be more appropriate?

[img] [/img]

I'll stay where I am thanks ernie 🙂

I think it would be a bit different. A pilot making a mistake wouldn't face a murder charge, unless of course there was some evidence he had crashed his plane deliberately. A firearms officer who in the heat of the moment decides he needs to shoot someone could be convicted of it, if a jury subsequently decided his decision wasn't reasonable.

Is it that different?

Watching the air investigation programs, there are instances where the pilot has been faced with a developing critical scenario and having assessed the information, taken incorrect/unreasonable action from that leading to considerable loss of life. He has acted to stop a threat to life and not set out to kill anyone, but has done so through his direct action.

Ignoring the paris style attack for a second (as thats a slightly different scenario), a general firearms incident could be along the lines of only firing where absolutely necessary, shooting to stop a person (not intending to kill them) where there is an immediate threat to life ... so an AFO can have acted to stop what they perceive as a threat to life, not necessarily set out to kill, but may have done so through their direct action.

To me, its not that wildly different, just feels that pilot error is a more socially accepted occurrence. Is it generally cause the pilot dies in these circumstances that pilot error is easier to write it off with?

If [AFOs] all decide the risk isn't worth it we could end up with none, or not enough. Who knows? I'm just saying that there's a precedent for AFO's deciding to jack it in if they see someone being, [u]in their eyes[/u], unfairly treated for just trying to do their jobs.

I don't know, but my respect for the police relies to some extent on the belief that they are better than to demand legal impunity to shoot people as a condition of coming to work.

There are (happily) very few shooting incidents in total, all of them are thoroughly investigated and the officers involved are generally completely vindicated. That all seems to be exactly as one would hope and expect.

🙂

Harry Stanley was a while ago would modern officers really think colleagues who shot an unarmed man carrying a bag were being unfairly treated if they were suspended pending some investigation to establish why they did it ?

The copper in this one has been suspended, according to the BBC this morning.

Seems that's not normal, which [i]implies[/i] that something went off-piste. If not, then they're undermining their own service by doing this aren't they ?

(TBH, I'd say that an officer who'd just shot and killed somebody [i]should[/i] be taken off duty for a short while at least, but that would have to be standard procedure).

I'm just saying that there's a precedent for AFO's deciding to jack it in if they see someone being, in their eyes, unfairly treated for just trying to do their jobs.

completely understandable TBH, but then should people who think like that be armed police? I would have thought that it would be more likely that they'd want the Police that aren't doing the role correctly to be a) prosecuted to make sure that the public have confidence that the law applies evenly, and b) that only Policemen/women who fully understand their role are recruited and retained?

There's a big difference between a police officer shooting someone when they think their life is in danger (e.g. see a gun being waved at them) but it's subsequently shown it wasn't a gun and a police officer executing someone for whatever reason but hiding behind a made-up cover story. The first is human error and the officer should at worst be permanently taken off firearms duty. The second is murder and they should be prosecuted the same as anyone else would be. The problem is establishing which is which.

Seems that's not normal, which implies that something went off-piste. If not, then they're undermining their own service by doing this aren't they ?

isn't undermining their own service the raison d'être of the IPCC/PSD/management?

@fisha - perhaps one of the lessons there is that air accident investigations are always approached from a no-blame point of view in recognition of the importance of systemic failings rather than individual fault. Accidents are caused by multiple factors and occur due to the complex interactions of numerous work system elements - perhaps De Menezes is the perfect example here, there is a strong argument that what happened occurred due to a breakdown of communication at multiple levels, leading to the police who shot him being told incorrect information, from which they were left thinking the bloke in front of them was about to blow himself up, and thus acted on that information.

Of course, blaming individuals is emotionally more satisfying than targeting working systems - but the air industry learned a long time ago that in order to get at the root of what happened it was important to remove blame from the equation unless gross negligence was identified. A whole branch of science in analysing human factors has been spawned, under the clear understanding that that causation is often multi-factorial, non-linear, and complex.

still, its probably easier just to threaten prosecute the bloke who fired the gun for murder, isn't it?

All of you lot criticising the cops for shooting to kill sound like a bunch of Corbyn-esque terrorist sympathisers.

There are (happily) very few shooting incidents in total, all of them are thoroughly investigated and the officers involved are generally completely vindicated. That all seems to be exactly as one would hope and expect.

That's true, perhaps the current process has the balance about right.

The first is human error and the officer should at worst be permanently taken off firearms duty

not necessarily if the item was wielded in a provocative manner suggesting it was a gun - waiting for positive and irrefutable visual confirmation that the item was a gun (not easy if a replica) isn't really an option.

Now imagine you are an armed officer, you confront a suspected armed villain with your weapon shouldered and looking at him through your sights "STOP, ARMED POLICE" you shout. Now you see the villain is not brandishing a gun but may or may not a carrying a gun.

But he does not stop, instead runs towards you, maybe you are blocking his only means of escape, or not.
What do you do?
Let go of your weapon and try to physically apprehend them, risking them maybe get hold of your weapon.
Do you just keep shouting stop and watch as they run at you or past you making there escape?

Or do you shoot.

Another thing that interests me is normally armed police don't travel alone and if you have several officers who have there weapons trained on you and you raise a weapon I would expect to be shot by all of them. So when shots fired are from just one officer is it because he alone was in a position to take a shot or did he get it wrong.

Similarly, if I was brandishing a gun and it was just one officer who was positioned at the time to open fire, I would expect to be shot more than once by that officer.

So some one shot several times dead (or not) by the police seems expected. But shot dead by the police by a single shot seems strange to me.

I think it would be a bit different. A pilot making a mistake wouldn't face a murder charge, unless of course there was some evidence he had crashed his plane deliberately. A firearms officer who in the heat of the moment decides he needs to shoot someone could be convicted of it, if a jury subsequently decided his decision wasn't reasonable.

And tbh the concept of a police officer is practically an abstraction so this is almost a theoretical discussion. Look at the number of people who die in police custody and at police hands, and then look at the number of police officers that get prosecuted for murder or manslaughter, and then look at the number of number convicted. It's practically zero. (You can bring your own explanation as for why). A cop that didn't want to sign up for armed duty because they were worried about prosecution would either be terrible at probability or a walking advert for moral hazard.

In any case there doesn't seem to be a problem with recruiting cops to go zooming around in blacked out beamers and shooting TX-1000s at the range. Apparently it's more attractive than dealing with Mrs Miggins's burglary or giving your 500th speeding ticket to some dickhead asking if you don't have real criminals to catch.

DrJ - Member
All of you lot criticising the cops for shooting to kill sound like a bunch of Corbyn-esque terrorist sympathisers.

🙂

Of course, blaming individuals is emotionally more satisfying than targeting working systems

Or that it goes towards a tick in the competencies box for some looking to gather work evidence (but thats a different topic)

@chip: Shoot / no shoot - there in lies the crux of the decision making needing done at the time. In answer to the question, there is no prescriptive answer to the scenario. Each officer has to act on their own decision making which includes what other officers are doing at the time.

if you have several officers who have there weapons trained on you and you raise a weapon I would expect to be shot by all of them.

Again, no prescriptive answer to this. There is no instructed line in the sand to cross, each officer decides on their own line. In your example, villain started running towards you. 1 officer may decide that 7m distance is the line in the sand in that circumstance, the other maybe 5m distance. 7m is crossed and 1 fires, the other doesn’t cause his line isn’t crossed. The 2nd officer, on hearing the shot will likely immediately re-assess the scene. If threat to life isn’t present, then no shot from second officer. Who was right and who was wrong? Its down to the officers to account for their reasoning at the time.

Then you also have the aspect of non-lethal options such as taser, which complicate the scene further.

DrJ - Member
All of you lot criticising the cops for shooting to kill sound like a bunch of Corbyn-esque terrorist sympathisers.

20 years ago I had a friend who told me his brother was going to sue the police.
He then went on to say that weekend his brother was at a club when he slipped out of a fire exit to retrieve a new box of cigarettes from the glovebox of his car.
When he could not regain entry by the way he left he tried to get back in the main doors, but despite his pleas that he had already paid and had merely popped out he was refused entry unless he paid again.

Being a doughnut he went back to his car where also in his glovebox he kept an imitation gun lighter.
He put this down the front of his trousers and went back to the club and when this time the door staff again refused him entry he showed them the gun sticking out of his trousers, at which point they stepped back allowing him to enter.
Needless to say several minutes later he found himself apparently face down on the dance floor with an armed officer standing on his head with his gun pointing at him.

I said, sue the police, your brothers an idiot who was lucky he was not shot.

That's the problem with the corbyn-esque types is they lay the blame entirely at the police officer who is probably a good man doing his best to make this country a safer place for you and me, and apportion none to the no good scroute who leads a life of violent crime purely to line their own pockets.
And then displays their displeasure by burning down an off licence and stealing a colourTv.

I don't get that ^ story, your mate's brother was a terrorist sympathiser?

No he was an idiot who believed he was blameless in the situation that led to him being on the wrong end of a loaded weapon with a police officer on the other end.
And lucky for him he complied and ended up with no more than a size ten boot print on his head.
But if it had played out differently I would have had no sympathy for him as I believe he would have greatly contributed to his own demise.
That is because I am a warmongering right wing nut job.

Where as if I was a corbyn esque terrorist sympathiser I everytime a known rum bugger got shot would always lay the blame at the feet of the murdering officer, Obvs.

Nahhh ... no big deal just another dead person that is meant to depart the world this way. Oh bless him for leaving more oxygen for us to breath.

How did that person get into a situation where the police has to shoot him in the first place?

I really don't see any coincidence where ordinary citizen would run into police with some sort of fake gun or real gun everyday ... I hope the police emptied the entire magazine into that tool.

The question is whether the police use a Glock or S&W or SIG ... which one has better stopping power. Especially if the person runs towards you like Fargo last night ... the big bloke was shot twice yet managed to attack the trooper.

🙄

No he was an idiot

But to be fair so are you. You come out with some old bollocks about Jeremy Corbyn and those who support him not apportioning any blame to a [i]"scroute who leads a life of violent crime purely to line their own pockets"[/i] which even by the standards sometimes displayed on here is idiotic in the extreme.

And you appear oblivious that the example you yourself provide in which an individual was dealt with without the need of lethal force, and was found to only possess a lighter, completely backs up those who like Jeremy Corbyn don't approve of shooting first and asking questions later.

I say "... reach for the sky ..." or meet Mr Glock or S & W ... probably SIG but then they get whatever equipment issued nowadays due to budget constraint.

Nope. In split second everything happens where one of them has to go.

🙄

But to be fair so are you. You come out with some old bollocks about Jeremy Corbyn and those who support him

[img] [/img]
Based on this earlier post by someone else which was also I believe.
[img] [/img]

All of you lot criticising the cops for shooting to kill sound like a bunch of Corbyn-esque terrorist sympathisers.

Jeez! (Not Jeremy corbyn)

And you appear oblivious that the example you yourself provide in which an individual was dealt with without the need of lethal force, and was found to only possess a lighter, completely backs up those who like Jeremy Corbyn don't approve of shooting first and asking questions later.

he had a lighter but he wasn't waving it around in a provocative manner, allowing the police to control the situation. Whereas if he had have waved it around, pretending it was a weapon, then getting shot was a likely and fair outcome, even if it was only a lighter.

he had a lighter but he wasn't waving it around in a provocative manner

So you where there?

According to Chip [i]"he showed them the gun sticking out of his trousers"[/i] which sounds pretty provocative to me.

Why did he show them the gun sticking out of his trousers if he wasn't trying to provoke a reaction?
I assume it wasn't to show them how pleased he was to see them.

So you where there?

No, but if he had been waving the gun around in the club then everyone else would have scarpered and he wouldn't have been surprised by a policeman knocking him to the floor as he would have seen him coming...

if they thought it was a gun in his trousers then it was 'holstered', so provocative but not to the same degree as waving it around, and no policeman (unless possibly in the US) would have shot him if his gun was holstered.

The question now is whether JC(not Jesus Christ) actually pulled the trigger ... 😆

if they thought it was a gun in his trousers then it was 'holstered', so provocative but not to the same degree as waving it around

I see.

Just as well that he didn't have a table leg in a carrier bag and only showed them "the gun sticking out of his trousers", 'cause that would have been really provocative.

Looks like the officer that shot the guy in the car has now been arrested: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/jermaine-baker-shooting-met-officer-arrested-in-dramatic-development-a3140021.html

Yes I just heard that on the radio. I wonder if he/she has done something they shouldn't have, or if this is a new investigative policy by the IPCC? Either way I hope they can do the necessary investigation swiftly, it doesn't help anyone when it drags on.

re. Armed police recall of incidents: (Canadians FWIW)

Investigations after critical events often depend on accurate and detailed recall accounts from operational witnesses (e.g., law enforcement officers, military personnel, and emergency responders). However, the challenging, and often stressful, nature of such events, together with the cognitive demands imposed on operational witnesses as a function of their active role, may impair subsequent recall. We compared the recall performance of operational active witnesses with that of nonoperational observer witnesses for a challenging simulated scenario involving an armed perpetrator. Seventy-six police officers participated in pairs. In each pair, 1 officer (active witness) was armed and instructed to respond to the scenario as they would in an operational setting, while the other (observer witness) was instructed to simply observe the scenario. All officers then completed free reports and responded to closed questions. Active witnesses showed a pattern of heart rate activity consistent with an increased stress response during the event, and subsequently reported significantly fewer correct details about the critical phase of the scenario. The level of stress experienced during the scenario mediated the effect of officer role on memory performance. Across the sample, almost one-fifth of officers reported that the perpetrator had pointed a weapon at them although the weapon had remained in the waistband of the perpetrator’s trousers throughout the critical phase of the encounter. These findings highlight the need for investigator awareness of both the impact of operational involvement and stress-related effects on memory for ostensibly salient details, and reflect the importance of careful and ethical information elicitation techniques. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved)

[url= http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/lhb0000159 ]Link - no further info really[/url]

Scaredypants - there's been research done on something called 'critical incident amnesia' along the lines that in stressful situations, recall is very limited - it's a bit like the basketball experiment where you don't see the gorilla walking past.

There's also been research into the best methods and timing of recalling events, that indicate mixed results as to whether a group debrief after a delay leads to better and more accurate recall of events than individual immediate ones, but some evidence that group debrief leads to lower incidence of PTSD as people get the chance to analyse events more thoroughly.