Menezes health and safety hearing

Originally Posted by northwind

Just as well they shot him then, god knows what would have happened next.

You remind me of one of my mates. I suspect you, however, were joking.

Originally Posted by Kinvig

I woldn't thank someone who shot an unarmed, innocent man on a tube train. If they suspected he was guitly they should have confronted him before he entered the station - it wasn't like he wasn't under surveillence!

I said it was thankless. Look to fixate on one thing is just not a broad view on the role of policing today.

To be given a weapon and a few rounds is a responsibility that was badly abused here. Shoot first and ask questions later is unacceptable. But to talk in general about the police based on this case is unacceptable.

Originally Posted by The Basket

Shoot first and ask questions later is unacceptable.

Somehow I don't think he was able to answer anything...

Oh dear! Now the Police are being accused of manipulating a photograph of the victim in order to have him appear much more like their intended target!

Maybe someone was caught drawing a beard on the pic with a biro? It is beyond belief the amount of co-ordinated denial going on here.

Originally Posted by The Basket

I said it was thankless. Look to fixate on one thing is just not a broad view on the role of policing today.

To be given a weapon and a few rounds is a responsibility that was badly abused here. Shoot first and ask questions later is unacceptable. But to talk in general about the police based on this case is unacceptable.

I don't think it's unacceptable to talk about the police in this manner. It's not that they made (several) mistakes, it's that they're doing everything they can to avoid taking any kind of responsibility, even so far as to try and cover it up.

Until the police are forced to face up to what they've done, the risk is it'll happen again.

[Spiderman]

Originally Posted by The Basket

I said it was thankless. Look to fixate on one thing is just not a broad view on the role of policing today.

To be given a weapon and a few rounds is a responsibility that was badly abused here. Shoot first and ask questions later is unacceptable. But to talk in general about the police based on this case is unacceptable.

I think this is more of a view about ARMED police not police i general.

Lets not bring up the case of the man shot dead for carrying a table leg in a plastic bag or the many other case where officers have shot and killed individuals where alternatives were open to them.

The MEt police have always said we dont operate a "shoot to kill" policy but then countered that with "we dont train our officers to shoot at limbs or anything like that but at the largest available target" so if a man has his back to you and spins around facing you with what you assume is a shotgun you have the right to kill him if you so wish.

Now in many other countries the polcie would take refuge behind vehicles since a shotgun (unless used at very close range) is not going to pentrate a vehicle and cause you any harm.....if the guy fires at you.
Shoot a man while he's spinning round to face you? Thats just wrong. yet those officers were also "let off" with the killing.
its the way armed police deal with situations that needs to be addressed and a lot of how they deal with the situation sees them using rubbish as intelligence.

"hello Mr Cooper, i'm sure that fella has a gun"
"OK, we'll go kill him based on that fact alone"

Not quite how it should be handled is it now?

The police in the range next to me had massive rifles yesterday! for Gwent police! I'm used to mp5/pistols being fired, but that's bizarre!

Ok its the Met police not police in general.I'm sure Fife constabulary are blameless on this one.

Spiderman...getting shot by a shotgun is very bad news. And I wouldn't trust a car door! You aim for the greatest body mass which is the chest or abdomen. The biggest area for the best chance of a hit. If you aim for the legs then the shooter can still fire his weapon.

A shotgun blast at close range is certain death. If an armed policeman is confronted with that possibility then he may get a bit jumpy. Can't blame him. He could be dead in two seconds. I agree that rules of engagement must apply strictly but if the police follow the ROE and kill someone then its a legal killing. If they don't then its an illegal killing.

There are plenty gun and plenty gun crime on our streets. So armed police are going to be a big fixture in policing. BUT remember that the UK is the ONLY policeforce in the developed world that doesne carry guns.

Originally Posted by The Basket

Ok its the Met police not police in general.I'm sure Fife constabulary are blameless on this one.

Spiderman...getting shot by a shotgun is very bad news. And I wouldn't trust a car door! You aim for the greatest body mass which is the chest or abdomen. The biggest area for the best chance of a hit. If you aim for the legs then the shooter can still fire his weapon.

A shotgun blast at close range is certain death. If an armed policeman is confronted with that possibility then he may get a bit jumpy. Can't blame him. He could be dead in two seconds. I agree that rules of engagement must apply strictly but if the police follow the ROE and kill someone then its a legal killing. If they don't then its an illegal killing.

There are plenty gun and plenty gun crime on our streets. So armed police are going to be a big fixture in policing. BUT remember that the UK is the ONLY policeforce in the developed world that doesne carry guns.

Basket, you obviouly know at lot more about this sort of stuff as I take it you are a serving firearms officer.

The body armour you guys wear, whats it rated to stop? I have always assumed that it will stop 9mm and shotgun fire even point blank but not rifles, also does it protect your neck and downstairs bit at all?

One thing I am unclear about in this whole case is did the officers on the ground follow the rules of engagment? Or was this a fault of the commanding officer. IMO someone has got to be held accountable for this mans death.

The other thing is are we expecting to much of the firearms officers themselves? I have always seen them as kind of SAS types because you dont see then very often and you sort of expect that they are trained to an almost superhuman standard, how many firearms officers do we have in the country?

This also reminds me of another case in the oxfordshire area where a man held his family hostage for hours while the police waited for the firearms unit, iirc everyone inside died because of the wait.

I still stick to my original view that someone should be punished, even if its just losing there job because something somewhere f*cked up badley. I dont think anyone has yet lost there job have they, and the firearms officers involved are back on duty?

[Spiderman]

Originally Posted by The Basket

Spiderman...getting shot by a shotgun is very bad news. And I wouldn't trust a car door!

Please read my post. I never suggested taking cover behind a car door and i'm sure thats not what they would train officers to do. I said behind the car itself and to my mind behind the engine. No shotgun would be capable of penetrating that.

Originally Posted by The Basket

A shotgun blast at close range is certain death.

Agreed and i'm sure it'd make one hell of a mess too. But why would an officer who is armed with a weapon with a much better killing range get so close to someone who is POSSIBLY armed with a shotgun?

Originally Posted by The Basket

If an armed policeman is confronted with that possibility then he may get a bit jumpy. Can't blame him. He could be dead in two seconds.

I can! He's a highly trained officer who has fired his weapon in many training situations and quite possibly in anger/action. I presume they happily recruit ex-soldiers with good weapons experience, no?
If i was confronted by a burglar and i was armed then i'd be expected to get jumpy and make rash decisions. I'd expect the person wearing the uniform to show the highest restarain and put self preservation and the preservation of he innocent at the highest priority.

Originally Posted by The Basket

There are plenty gun and plenty gun crime on our streets. So armed police are going to be a big fixture in policing. BUT remember that the UK is the ONLY policeforce in the developed world that doesne carry guns.

And those armed police that are gonna be about in greater numbers are gonna be just as jumpy if not jumpier??? i'd expect the police to learn lessons from these sort fo things and all i see is the old culture of closing ranks and protecting their own, regardless of the loss of innocent life.

And the fact that the UK police are the only ones that are not routinely aremd does not mean that they kill less people yearly than those countries that have armed officers does it?
If i had the time i'd look into the stats for this but i think we've moved a long way way from the "old days" of being proud that bobbies are unarmed....especially now that they want to arm more officers with tazers when up to now its been firearms officers who could use the tazer.

I can understand your positon of trying to defend the police as a serving member but to be so blinkered to the real facts of this case is a little worrying to me.
Rank and file officers should be up in arms that men were sent to kill someone based on weak, flimsy surveilance. The guy who was supposed to ID him as he left his flat was busy taking a pee FFS. At that point the operation should have been deemed a failure and surveilance only maintained on a "possible" suspect until clear ID had been made of him.

Heads must roll. You cant kill innocent people and not have to face the music.