Policing in the UK

[blueinsa]

Firearms officers refusing to carry and handing in their tickets is a Tory distraction?

Christ!

 

[blueinsa]

Was I wrong?

Never, it’s never been known.

I’ve told you before, impossible to engage with you so I’m not going to bother.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

We don't. Anyone who says they do is full of shit.

At present there's zero evidence avaialable to the public so any rational person would be letting the judicial process take place without assuming the firearms officer was right to shoot him or not.

What we do know is that the CPS have decided to proceed with a prosecution based on the evidence they are in possession of.

The only reason I can see for that decision is that the officer acted outside of their VERY STRICT rules of engagement (RoE).

The RoE are designed to give the firearms officer a set of rules which are clear and unambiguous, and more importantly compliant with legislation as to when the use of lethal force can be applied. If they act outside of the RoE, then they are on very shaky ground.

 

[domalino]

What we do know is that the CPS have decided to proceed with a prosecution based on the evidence they are in possession of.

The only reason I can see for that decision is that the officer acted outside of their VERY STRICT rules of engagement (RoE).

The RoE are designed to give the firearms officer a set of rules which are clear and unambiguous, and more importantly compliant with legislation as to when the use of lethal force can be applied. If they act outside of the RoE, then they are on very shaky ground.

Thousands of people over the decades have been charged by CPS and found not guilty, or had charges dropped later, so you can't really infer anything from that other than it's not clear cut that he did nothing wrong.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Thousands of people over the decades have been charged by CPS and found not guilty, or had charges dropped later, so you can't really infer anything from that other than it's not clear cut that he did nothing wrong.

That's true, but the point about the RoE is still extant.

If the officer had complied with the RoE then it is inconceivable that the CPS would seek a prosecution for murder because an officer operating within the strict boundaries of the RoE is compliant with the law.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

The police need to let the investigation take place. If the officer broke the law he broke the law. If the perpetrator needed shooting he needed shooting.
There needs to be a proper investigation not the police going on strike if someone does something potentially illegal. And certainly not riots from people who hate the police.

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

The police need to let the investigation take place. If the officer broke the law he broke the law. If the perpetrator needed shooting he needed shooting.
There needs to be a proper investigation not the police going on strike if someone does something potentially illegal. And certainly not riots from people who hate the police.

They arent on strike, they have gone to duties that dont involve carrying firearms.

 

[bluethrunthru]

They arent on strike, they have gone to duties that dont involve carrying firearms.

I assume any pay increment for being a firearms officer will be stopped too? Their refusal to continue as a firearms officer not only endanger Joe Public it endangers their colleagues too.

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

I assume any pay increment for being a firearms officer will be stopped too? Their refusal to continue as a firearms officer not only endanger Joe Public it endangers their colleagues too.

There isnt any extra pay

 

[bluethrunthru]

There isnt any extra pay

There increased danger though

 

[mancityvstoke]

They need to shoot more cunts ...not enough being slaughtered for me

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

I don’t really get why we have police officers now refusing to carry firearms. Maybe somebody can enlighten me if there is more to this than meets the eye (as is usually the case). It feels like there must be.

Surely they can’t think that they should be allowed to use them with impunity? If so then they shouldn’t have been carrying one in the first place. These officers should know if they don’t follow the protocols of their training then they will be treated like any other citizen carrying a firearm. This isn’t the USA. This is the solemn responsibility of carrying a deadly weapon around in public, and if you’re not comfortable with that, simply don’t carry one.

That’s to say nothing about the officer at the centre of this. If the investigation into the incident in question shows they were acting within the guidelines set by their training then there will be no problem. If they weren’t then there will be a problem. Simple as that.

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

Its because they have to act under the most intense pressure and make split second decisions in dynamic, ever evolving situations. There is no such thing as rules of engagement, except in Line Of Duty. They work under dynamically changing information and intelligence. The decisions they make are rightly accountable and nobody takes life or death decisions lightly, but they are made in an instant. Those decisions and actions are poured over and scrutinised after the event. But to fear being charged with murder goes way beyond the procedure of suspension while an independent review is undertaken. That concern will naturally affect the decisions made, and that makes it dangerous and unsafe. In other words actions are slowed, doubt creeps in, and dynamic events arent responded to properly.

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

Its because they have to act under the most intense pressure and make split second decisions in dynamic, ever evolving situations. There is no such thing as rules of engagement, except in Line Of Duty. They work under dynamically changing information and intelligence. The decisions they make are rightly accountable and nobody takes life or death decisions lightly, but they are made in an instant. Those decisions and actions are poured over and scrutinised after the event. But to fear being charged with murder goes way beyond the procedure of suspension while an independent review is undertaken. That concern will naturally affect the decisions made, and that makes it dangerous and unsafe. In other words actions are slowed, doubt creeps in, and dynamic events arent responded to properly.

Fair answer, thank you.

Do we know why they went straight to charging the person in this case? Seems strange they wouldn’t have done a review first, as you say.

 

[west didsblue]

Fair answer, thank you.

Do we know why they went straight to charging the person in this case? Seems strange they wouldn’t have done a review first, as you say.

Fairly sure they reviewed the video evidence before charging, and presumably took witness statements.

 

[bluethrunthru]

I see they have stood the Army marksmen down.............. I assume it dawned on them that making Tottenham Court Road into the Falls Road was not a great look

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

Fair answer, thank you.

Do we know why they went straight to charging the person in this case? Seems strange they wouldn’t have done a review first, as you say.

It was. It went to the IOPC as is standard, and they investigated and they decided to refer it to the CPS, who have decided to charge him. It seems ridiculous

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

They need to shoot more cunts ...not enough being slaughtered for me

I wouldn't go that far but some of those cunts who tumble out of high-speed cars they've stolen and who clearly don't give a flying fuck should have a fine specimen of a police dog set upon them.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

It was. It went to the IOPC as is standard, and they investigated and they decided to refer it to the CPS, who have decided to charge him. It seems ridiculous

Would that be the same CPS that had a bloody great thick dossier on Jimmy S and chose to do nowt?

 

[domalino]

Would that be the same CPS that had a bloody great thick dossier on Jimmy S and chose to do nowt?

It’s also the same CPS that’s locked up every rightfully convicted criminal since 1986.