View Full Version : Armed Police & Video
454697819
10-01-14, 10:55 AM
I can understand the desire for this to be implemented, but who in there right mind would want to work for SO19 if every step of every day is monitored?
A split second decision where you feel your life may very well be in danger (for good reason) results in you protecting yourself and then being hung by your very actions?
Whilst non lethal force is always a preferred option perhaps the understanding that the police are a Force and should be able to use force to prevent public disturbances -
Big nasty topic but it doesn't sit right with me, likewise the Marine sentenced to life for a "war crime"
no opinion on this is right btw...
Spank86
10-01-14, 11:10 AM
well the police always say about CCTV that if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear.
what's sauce for the goose...
Specialone
10-01-14, 11:41 AM
It's a tough job as it is, a lot of pressure, even with following the law to the letter, if your discharge your firearm you are immediately put under scrutiny.
I would like the shooting part of it but not the pressure and red tape.
As long as they don't hold back and end up getting shoot themselves. It's got to be a good idea
It's a tough job as it is, a lot of pressure, even with following the law to the letter, if your discharge your firearm you are immediately put under scrutiny.
.
.
It's a thankless job,but fortunately someone does it
Even the non armed pc s have a hard time of it.
ClunkintheUK
10-01-14, 02:05 PM
It seems that the potential for good is there. AS SP1 says officers are put under immense scrutiny if they discharge their firearm, this does have the potential to stop the "He said, she said" type defense, but Just look at the divided opinions we get on here about youtube footage. Cameras only tell a small part of the story. I hope they consider the implementation and implications long and hard before doing this.
allantheboss
10-01-14, 02:50 PM
I'm so sick and tired of police having to be soft, polite, and the perfect example of superfluous political correctness. If you're not doing anything wrong, you will have no problem. Someone called the police on me a few nights ago, because I was pacing up and down a street corner wearing a hood up and trackie bottoms (just came from a volleyball tournament, and was on the phone to the girlfriend). I have no problem with that person calling the police because I know I looked suspicious. The policeman arrived, asked what I was doing, I explained myself, and he wished me a good evening before driving away. As a law-abiding citizen, it wouldn't have mattered to me if he has an Uzi in his hand and grenade in the other. As a criminal, I want police to constantly be under extreme duress to not do anything and posses no power.
I've seen a girl spit in a policeman's face and he was not allowed to do anything about it. People don't fear police, they mock them. This should not be the case. A recent example is at Notting Hill carnival. EVERYWHERE police went, they were shouted at, called pigs, teasing noises were made. This is not acceptable.
Policemen and women are not idiots. They are trained well, smart, and I trust their discretion. Give them more power, not more scrutiny. They should be proud to do what they do because it is a very honourable profession.
keith_d
10-01-14, 02:53 PM
It's a tough enough job already, without worrying about being second-guessed by some desk bound lawyer looking at a GoPro recording after the event.
But this is just part of trying to balance the need to have an effective police force without that authority being abused. Personally, I'd prefer to give police officers a bit more discretion and a few less hard and fast rules. But that doesn't seem to be the way society is going at the moment.
Keith.
I'd be happy to give officers a bit more lattitude in alot of areas but discharging a firearm is significant and deserves a great deal of scrutiny. I suspect most armed officers would agree with that.
If it was otherwise, the job would attract the wrong type.
I would like the shooting part of it but not the pressure and red tape.
See? ;)
likewise the Marine sentenced to life for a "war crime"
Inverted commas not required IMO. Shooting an unarmed prisoner and turning to your mates saying "This doesn't go anywhere, I just broke the Geneva Convention" is definitely a war crime.
SvNewbie
10-01-14, 03:27 PM
Inverted commas not required IMO. Shooting an unarmed prisoner and turning to your mates saying "This doesn't go anywhere, I just broke the Geneva Convention" is definitely a war crime.
I was about to say just that Tam.
That "marine" endangered the life of every serving member of our military by showing our own disregard for the established rules of war. Anything less than a life sentence would have been an abomination.
SvNewbie
10-01-14, 03:42 PM
Also, as for the Mark Duggan thing. As far as I'm aware the fact that he was carrying a gun earlier was not disputed. In my mind getting shot is an expected outcome from carrying a gun, as my mother would say 'hell mend you'.
454697819
10-01-14, 03:47 PM
I'd be happy to give officers a bit more lattitude in alot of areas but discharging a firearm is significant and deserves a great deal of scrutiny. I suspect most armed officers would agree with that.
If it was otherwise, the job would attract the wrong type.
See? ;)
Inverted commas not required IMO. Shooting an unarmed prisoner and turning to your mates saying "This doesn't go anywhere, I just broke the Geneva Convention" is definitely a war crime.
and in my opinion they were required.
He acted poorly yes, he was suffering PTSD, and lost it - lets not argue about that here, but in my opinion its not cut and dry as you make out and I did not think it warranted life sentence.
Mark Duggan was unarmed at the time of shooting, by your train of though that makes the officers actions a crime?
Fallout
10-01-14, 03:54 PM
It's a good thing. It'll help them prove their innocent if they shoot someone without a gun. Think about it. Cop is saying "Show your hands" or something, crim doesn't have a gun, but never shows his hands, and gets shot.
The facts: Crim didn't have a gun and got shot. Media go mental. Cop is a gun-ho monster. Blah blah. No way to prove otherwise. The video footage would support his claim, from FIRST PERSON (which is critical) of the threat he perceived. It's the only way to truly appreciate the threat the cop saw, and it can only be a good thing.
The only way it can be perceived as bad is if you think it's acceptable for a cop to make a mistake a shoot someone who wasn't a threat. That isn't acceptable. You join armed police, you accept the responsibility of making the right decisions with the information you have. If you don't want that responsibility, don't join them.
Just don't think shooting a crim without a gun, when caught on film, means the cop will be hung out to dry. The footage will allow you to see the hidden hands, body movements, verbal cues, whatever, that made the cop think he had to fire in that situation. It'll be a positive thing.
This is a practise which has/is being adopted by swat and HRT units in the states. It makes perfect sense for a couple of reasons.
The whole team have them and all footage is assessed to get the best possible holistic representation.
Discharging a firearm like that is likely to mean that your own personal recollection of events may not be accurate.
Eye witness statements are frequently incorrect and the footage will help to either uphold or disprove various claims.
Can be used for training future officers.
I am surprised that cameras are not standard issue equipment for any person in our "forces" that carry weapons. Police, army etc.
Like someone else says, unless there is something to hide it shouldn't be a problem having armed interactions recorded.
Specialone
10-01-14, 04:12 PM
I'd be happy to give officers a bit more lattitude in alot of areas but discharging a firearm is significant and deserves a great deal of scrutiny. I suspect most armed officers would agree with that.
If it was otherwise, the job would attract the wrong type.
See? ;)
Can't argue there Tam, I haven't got the right temperment or restraint,
ClunkintheUK
10-01-14, 04:18 PM
Fair point on getting a lot of footage. I do really hope that it will be used that way, i.e. from the starting point of trusting the officers.
Is SWAT footage available to the public?
Specialone
10-01-14, 04:19 PM
We are humans, we don't always make the correct decisions 100% of the time, all the stupid public and scum of the earth media would see if there was a 'grey' shooting is the video and make everything black and white, they won't take in account the circumstances, the speed at which a situation can change, peripheral evidence, not visible on the camera etc etc.
So that said, I'm undecided on the cameras.
The duggan incident doesn't change anything if the officer had a camera, the guy was armed, admittedly it was in the taxi, but he obviously wasn't complying.
SvNewbie
10-01-14, 04:24 PM
Mark Duggan was unarmed at the time of shooting, by your train of though that makes the officers actions a crime?
That form of argument is known as a straw man. The circumstances are completely different.
Fair point on getting a lot of footage. I do really hope that it will be used that way, i.e. from the starting point of trusting the officers.
Is SWAT footage available to the public?
As far as I'm aware, not as a matter of course. I think that if a case were such that it had to go to court for whatever reason, officer charged or whatever then it would be made available to the court.
ClunkintheUK
10-01-14, 04:25 PM
Exactly what I was thinking SP1. Armchair courts.
Sp1 has a point.
If it were to be implemented then appropriate safeguards and processes for the assessment of footage would need be be drawn up.
Obviously average joe won't be viewing and passing judgement, it would be down the correct people who, possibly, would be the same as before. Only now they have an additional source of evidence.
Mark Duggan was unarmed at the time of shooting, by your train of though that makes the officers actions a crime?
If he was, beyond reasonable doubt, unarmed then the killing was unlawful. Not my train of thought - that was the judges direction.
The jury decided to come up with a rather strange conclusion but this was a complicated case with a lot of conflicting evidence (some camera footage might have helped ;)). They clearly felt the officer had an honest belief that Duggan represented an imminent danger and, while they thought he was probably unarmed at the point of shooting, they didn't think the circumstances warranted blame towards the officer.
I don't claim any special wisdom and I don't think I could have come up with anything better working with what they had.
Very different circumstances between the two cases though.
Sp1 has a point.
If it were to be implemented then appropriate safeguards and processes for the assessment of footage would need be be drawn up.
Obviously average joe won't be viewing and passing judgement, it would be down the correct people who, possibly, would be the same as before. Only now they have an additional source of evidence.
If someone is killed by the Police then there's an inquest with a jury and it becomes part of the evidence they can review.
So long as we can be sure all the footage is there and can't be tampered with then it's some more imperfect evidence to go along with all the other imperfect evidence.
After that, it's a job for average joe the juror to decide.
Spank86
10-01-14, 04:44 PM
The problem with guns is that by the time someone's pointed one at you it's probably a little late to think about shooting.
I would imagine that's why the jury felt it was justified since there was a reasonable suspicion that he may still have the gun.
I haven't looked into the case and Don't know I'm just speculating wildly.
Mr Duggans actions immediately before the shot was fired would probably be the key. If he had both hands in view then I probably wouldn't be justified, if he had one hand obscured and could have been pulling a gun that might be different.
Either way the jury didn't have an easy decision to make.
Red ones
10-01-14, 04:53 PM
"Mr Duggans actions immediately before the shot was fired would probably be the key."
Why was he being followed by armed police? Why did he have a gun? What did the police know that we still don't?
The problem with guns is that by the time someone's pointed one at you it's probably a little late to think about shooting.
Aye bloody difficult.
You've just been briefed that he's a proper wrong 'un, been in before for suspected or attempted murder and has just bought a gun.
Add in the noise and mayhem of the stop, your facing him and your colleagues are shouting stuff like "drop it" and "he's reaching".
If you're now thinking about what you would do, it's too late. Hats off to them.
Matt-EUC
10-01-14, 06:06 PM
I don't think the police should carry guns as standard. If the police carry them, then the amount of criminals who regularly carry them sky rockets. Now, if you gave EVERYONE the right to carry then things might be different. Although everyone may be assumed armed by police, criminals probably all have guns but so does everyone else. Crim pulls a gun, so do six other blokes in the immediate vicinity and fill him with holes. Seems to work for the yanks.
ClunkintheUK
10-01-14, 06:14 PM
Its was more should the existing armed response units have cameras as standard. Not whether police in general should carry guns.
Matt-EUC
10-01-14, 06:15 PM
I knew that...
(I didn't know that.)
SvNewbie
10-01-14, 06:20 PM
Seems to work for the yanks.
More 3 year old kids get killed by parents weapons than are saved by gun carrying knights in shining armour.*
* No facts to back that up other than America's terrible record on keeping guns.
Matt-EUC
10-01-14, 06:23 PM
Ok, we have strict licencing and background checks and psychological profiles made on a monthly basis. I think that satisfies most of the arguments that can be made against it.
Specialone
10-01-14, 06:34 PM
More 3 year old kids get killed by parents weapons than are saved by gun carrying knights in shining armour.*
* No facts to back that up other than America's terrible record on keeping guns.
Yeah, and more people die or get serious injury in marital disputes than gun crime, we can all misuse stats :)
Matt-EUC
10-01-14, 06:37 PM
More people get seriously injured or suffer major psychological trauma simply through getting married than are attacked by sharks.
More people get seriously injured or suffer major psychological trauma simply through knowing me than are attacked by sharks.
Fixed that for you
Biker Biggles
10-01-14, 06:50 PM
I can understand the desire for this to be implemented, but who in there right mind would want to work for SO19 if every step of every day is monitored?
A split second decision where you feel your life may very well be in danger (for good reason) results in you protecting yourself and then being hung by your very actions?
Whilst non lethal force is always a preferred option perhaps the understanding that the police are a Force and should be able to use force to prevent public disturbances -
Big nasty topic but it doesn't sit right with me, likewise the Marine sentenced to life for a "war crime"
no opinion on this is right btw...
Indeed.Who would want to take the risk of being in SO19 if everything you did was scrutinised to the n'th degree by armchair experts after the event?We dont seem to be able to accept that if we have armed criminals on the street and we therefore arm some cops to combat them,there are going to be some ugly results.Same applies if you send soldiers into Ulster/Afgan or wherever,there will be nasty consequences.Unfair to put too much blame on the individuals who pull the triggers rather than the leaders who send them in IMO.
keith_d
10-01-14, 07:17 PM
I don't think the police should carry guns as standard. If the police carry them, then the amount of criminals who regularly carry them sky rockets. Now, if you gave EVERYONE the right to carry then things might be different. Although everyone may be assumed armed by police, criminals probably all have guns but so does everyone else. Crim pulls a gun, so do six other blokes in the immediate vicinity and fill him with holes. Seems to work for the yanks.
You haven't seen the footage of two bank robbers in full kevlar suits firing on full auto at the US police while 9mm rounds from the police hand guns were bouncing off. Have a look for "North Holywood Shootout" I'm sure it will still be on Youtube.
The Basket
10-01-14, 07:29 PM
Witness B had a perfect view even though he was over 100 metres away and 9 stories up.
That guy should work for NASA as replacement for the Hubble Telescope.
Killing the enemy on the field of battle isnt a chuffing war crime.
Specialone
10-01-14, 07:39 PM
You haven't seen the footage of two bank robbers in full kevlar suits firing on full auto at the US police while 9mm rounds from the police hand guns were bouncing off. Have a look for "North Holywood Shootout" I'm sure it will still be on Youtube.
I've seen that a few times, many police injured, both robbers end up dead eventually.
millemille
10-01-14, 08:33 PM
If you're not doing anything wrong, you will have no problem.
I'm sure the families of Ian Tomlinson, Jean Charles de Menezes and Harry Stanley would disagree.....
Killing the enemy on the field of battle isnt a chuffing war crime.
No it isn't. Summarily executing prisoners who have surrendered is.
The Basket
10-01-14, 09:18 PM
Did the insurgent surrender?
Was he still armed?
Was he booby trapped?
Was he unconscious?
Was he in uniform?
Was he a member of a known military organisation?
What rights do non-military combatants have?
Ohhh the legalities.
I don't think the police should carry guns as standard. If the police carry them, then the amount of criminals who regularly carry them sky rockets. .
Based on what exactly?
Quick web search with regards to firearm deaths per 100,000 people in 2010:
UK: 0.25
Poland: 0.25
Romania: 0.19
Singapore: 0.16
As far as I'm aware, police in all the foreign countries above regularly carry a gun.
To say police with guns will equal more criminals with guns is an assumption. Criminals arm themselves in order to threaten civilians, not because they want to out muscle the police.
Matt-EUC
10-01-14, 09:49 PM
What are we doing here if not making assumptions.
Ohhh the legalities.
Quite.
We send men to kill other men.
If they're successful they get a medal or they get the jail, depending on circumstances.
Many of them will do terrible things in terrible situations and be judged by those who wouldn't dare put themselves in the same position.
We should put them in such situations with more care than we do.
The Basket
10-01-14, 11:18 PM
Well, when an adult male is chasing a female with intent to commit rape, I shoot the bar steward. That's my policy.*
Dirty Harry.
You put a man in a warzone with a weapon. You make that man scared. You make him fear for his life and he is going to pull that trigger every time. All the time. What you then do is support that man you put there and dehumanised. You support him because he is doing the dirty job that has to be done because no one else wants to.
For sure, we aint Vikings and we must fight and die like civilized men. But history has taught the world one thing, and I like my history, is war is a constant and you sink the Bismarck because the Bismarck will sink you.
Support the troops and not readers of the Guardian.
21QUEST
11-01-14, 02:22 AM
Well, when an adult male is chasing a female with intent to commit rape, I shoot the bar steward. That's my policy.*
Dirty Harry.
You put a man in a warzone with a weapon. You make that man scared. You make him fear for his life and he is going to pull that trigger every time. All the time. What you then do is support that man you put there and dehumanised. You support him because he is doing the dirty job that has to be done because no one else wants to.
For sure, we aint Vikings and we must fight and die like civilized men. But history has taught the world one thing, and I like my history, is war is a constant and you sink the Bismarck because the Bismarck will sink you.
Support the troops and not readers of the Guardian.
With respect, a nice sounding piece for sure but in relation to the 'particular incident' , there could be only one verdict for the act of savagery...and that was the verdict that was arrived at.
The video of the incident shows the soldier was fully aware of what he was doing. The only person to blame for the hearing and subsequent sentence was himself....perhaps, he was so hell-bent on committing the crime they either forgot to switch the camera off(?|) or forgot they had one attached.
The Basket
11-01-14, 09:07 AM
We live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.
A Few Good Men.
ct of savagery? Find out what the Taleban do to prisoners. It makes ya puke.
Acts of savagery? Is that a legal term?
The defence of the Sgt was incompetent and a one armed chimp would have done better.
Not saying that war dont have rules but murder? on the battlefield?
If war is murder than why aint everyone been done for murder?
The Guardian bleeding hearts weep for a dead insurgent.
Fallout
11-01-14, 09:34 AM
I think the real lesson as far as the army is concerned is don't join it! I'm sure its an awesome career but you get deployed into all manner of theatres, and you have to be fairly blind to believe these are all in the defence of our country. Much of it is political manoeuvring, as it is and has always been. Don't make yourself a tool for the government and give away your choice over right and wrong to their often morally wrong agendas.
Amadeus
11-01-14, 05:24 PM
Basket, are you, or have you been in the forces?
Matt-EUC
11-01-14, 05:29 PM
I think the real lesson as far as the army is concerned is don't join it! I'm sure its an awesome career but you get deployed into all manner of theatres, and you have to be fairly blind to believe these are all in the defence of our country. Much of it is political manoeuvring, as it is and has always been. Don't make yourself a tool for the government and give away your choice over right and wrong to their often morally wrong agendas.
If we had no army, we'd get invaded every other week.
Spank86
11-01-14, 05:43 PM
Ok, we have strict licencing and background checks and psychological profiles made on a monthly basis. I think that satisfies most of the arguments that can be made against it.
Not really. Most of those things only stop someone after they've committed one crime and psychological tests are laughable.
Spank86
11-01-14, 05:54 PM
Did the insurgent surrender?
Was he still armed?
Was he booby trapped?
Was he unconscious?
Was he in uniform?
Was he a member of a known military organisation?
What rights do non-military combatants have?
Ohhh the legalities.
The Geneva conventions says if there's any doubt then the decision has to be made by a competent tribunal.
So the only real question there was had he surrendered.
The Basket
11-01-14, 07:22 PM
Basket, are you, or have you been in the forces?
No. I have never been in the military.
I was in the RAF.
Matt-EUC
14-01-14, 03:53 PM
No. I have never been in the military.
I was in the RAF.
I think that counts.
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.