mancityvstoke
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2009
- Messages
- 21,935
- Location
- Vintage terraced Kippax
- Team supported
- The only football team to come from Manchester
They need to shoot more cunts ...not enough being slaughtered for me
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Policing in the UK
- Thread starter The blue phantom
- Start date
SkyBlueFlux
Well-Known Member
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.
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
Well-Known Member
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.
Last edited:
SkyBlueFlux
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Oct 2011
- Messages
- 31,845
Fairly sure they reviewed the video evidence before charging, and presumably took witness statements.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.
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
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 ridiculousFair 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.
Dave Ewing's Back 'eader
Well-Known Member
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.They need to shoot more cunts ...not enough being slaughtered for me
Dave Ewing's Back 'eader
Well-Known Member
Would that be the same CPS that had a bloody great thick dossier on Jimmy S and chose to do nowt?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?
It’s also the same CPS that’s locked up every rightfully convicted criminal since 1986.