FabSwingers.com forum: Met Firearms Officers Hand in Guns

By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago

Chelmsford

Reports that a met firearms officer is to be charged after a man was shot. Many firearms officers have handed in their weapons as a result and they are drafting crack marksmen from other areas to cover. Is it time to send in the army ..

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ora the explorerWoman
over a year ago

Paradise, Herts

I have a family member and a friend who handed theirs in yesterday. I don’t blame them and I hope the rest of the country follow suit. Some already are I believe.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *mma29Couple
over a year ago

wirral

This is the moment you have been waiting for Tom. They might actually have to send in the army haha.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"This is the moment you have been waiting for Tom. They might actually have to send in the army haha.

The day that happens, we are all royally fucked!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *tevie1Man
over a year ago

Middlesbrough

People forget that the car involved failed to stop. I don’t blame them

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago

Chelmsford

"People forget that the car involved failed to stop. I don’t blame them "

So every time a car fails to stop then they should be executed and gunned down like dogs in the hot sun?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ou only live onceMan
over a year ago

London

I can't understand why. The rules they operate under haven't changed.

Should the the CPS not bring charges if they think someone has committed a crime after reviewing the evidence in front of them?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Known criminal with firearm marker on vehicle fails to stop to armed police and drives at them when boxed in

I can’t see the officer being convicted

This is only a thing because of the race element.

Can you blame the police for handing in their guns

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *lmost TouchingMan
over a year ago

Wherever I lay my hat.

I do worry that we are running off the cliff and that Society is regressing.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago

Chelmsford

People are taking this at face value. Are they are putting the safety of Londoners before the safety of people in the shires. Robbing the shires and faraway places like Scotland of their protection. And before people say they are just using spare capacity of people on their days off then do you want an armed cop who has not had a day off in months making the decision to shoot with his eyes held open by matchsticks.

Time to send in the army

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ucka39Man
over a year ago

Newcastle

A discharge by a firearm officer was supposed to be only to injury enough so that the person could be not a risk factor and safely be detained unless threats to life of others at a very crucial time. So was there a risk besides, was there any intelligence.... over to you tom for the weather

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ools and the brainCouple
over a year ago

couple, us we him her.

"Known criminal with firearm marker on vehicle fails to stop to armed police and drives at them when boxed in

I can’t see the officer being convicted

This is only a thing because of the race element.

Can you blame the police for handing in their guns"

Exactly officer's are going to be and already are in a position where they are going to hesitate concerned about the consequences.

Rightfully the case in question should be reviewed as it should be every time a weapon is discharged,but officer's are scared incase they get accused of wrong doing.

Imagine if it's a terrorist situation and they hesitate and a bomb is set off, people would then be blaming the police for not acting fast enough.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ris GrayMan
over a year ago

Dorchester

"Reports that a met firearms officer is to be charged after a man was shot. Many firearms officers have handed in their weapons as a result and they are drafting crack marksmen from other areas to cover. Is it time to send in the army .."
yes send in the army..... Crack marksmen those military men

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"A discharge by a firearm officer was supposed to be only to injury enough so that the person could be not a risk factor and safely be detained unless threats to life of others at a very crucial time. So was there a risk besides, was there any intelligence.... over to you tom for the weather

I'm afraid this is a Hollywood/media myth. Whilst the Police 'Shoot to stop', not 'Shoot to Kill', the realities of shooting someone in the head can be quite life limiting. All the cries of why didn't they just shot in the arm or leg or whatever, is utter bollocks. Shooting to incapacitate a person is an incredibly rare opportunity.

The police aim (if they remember and are capable) for centre of mass, occasionally head if no other option. If the suspect lives , hurrah, If they don't.....play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

As for the Army, yes they have a wonderful record of not killing unless necessary........

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Known criminal with firearm marker on vehicle fails to stop to armed police and drives at them when boxed in

I can’t see the officer being convicted

This is only a thing because of the race element.

Can you blame the police for handing in their guns

Exactly officer's are going to be and already are in a position where they are going to hesitate concerned about the consequences.

Rightfully the case in question should be reviewed as it should be every time a weapon is discharged,but officer's are scared incase they get accused of wrong doing.

Imagine if it's a terrorist situation and they hesitate and a bomb is set off, people would then be blaming the police for not acting fast enough.

It's significant that the charge is, reportedly, murder. It was always considered that if an AFO killed someone through an error of judgement or a reckless/careless act, the charge would be manslaughter. Murder requires intent, so it will be interesting to see what motive for that intent is put forward.

Regardless, AFOs all over the country will take this as a signal that they could do their job and still end up on a murder charge. They are all volunteers. Who needs that shit, when they can just go back to routine policing tomorrow?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ou only live onceMan
over a year ago

London

"Known criminal with firearm marker on vehicle fails to stop to armed police and drives at them when boxed in

I can’t see the officer being convicted

This is only a thing because of the race element.

Can you blame the police for handing in their guns

Exactly officer's are going to be and already are in a position where they are going to hesitate concerned about the consequences.

Rightfully the case in question should be reviewed as it should be every time a weapon is discharged,but officer's are scared incase they get accused of wrong doing.

Imagine if it's a terrorist situation and they hesitate and a bomb is set off, people would then be blaming the police for not acting fast enough.

This case has been reviewed and the CPS believe there is enough of a case to press charges.

I agree they need to make very difficult decisions, but that's where their training and judgment comes in. They should fear consequences - they don't have freedom to act with impunity.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth

"Known criminal with firearm marker on vehicle fails to stop to armed police and drives at them when boxed in

I can’t see the officer being convicted

This is only a thing because of the race element.

Can you blame the police for handing in their guns

Exactly officer's are going to be and already are in a position where they are going to hesitate concerned about the consequences.

Rightfully the case in question should be reviewed as it should be every time a weapon is discharged,but officer's are scared incase they get accused of wrong doing.

Imagine if it's a terrorist situation and they hesitate and a bomb is set off, people would then be blaming the police for not acting fast enough.

This. Who needs that shit?

That officer was doing his job. Did he get it wrong? Possibly. Did he go out that evening with intent to kill or even shoot? Highly unlikely.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Known criminal with firearm marker on vehicle fails to stop to armed police and drives at them when boxed in

I can’t see the officer being convicted

This is only a thing because of the race element.

Can you blame the police for handing in their guns

Exactly officer's are going to be and already are in a position where they are going to hesitate concerned about the consequences.

Rightfully the case in question should be reviewed as it should be every time a weapon is discharged,but officer's are scared incase they get accused of wrong doing.

Imagine if it's a terrorist situation and they hesitate and a bomb is set off, people would then be blaming the police for not acting fast enough.

This case has been reviewed and the CPS believe there is enough of a case to press charges.

I agree they need to make very difficult decisions, but that's where their training and judgment comes in. They should fear consequences - they don't have freedom to act with impunity."

I agree, but a lapse in training or judgment does not amount to intent to kill someone. It’s a fuck up. Murder requires intent, ie a conscious decision.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *teveanddebsCouple
over a year ago

Norwich

I don't think the Army lads would be keen on the idea.

Shoot some scrote today, get charged with a historic murder charge in 30 years time?

No ta

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think they know they won’t get a conviction but need to make it look like they are trying to keep public opinion in line

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *teveanddebsCouple
over a year ago

Norwich

"I think they know they won’t get a conviction but need to make it look like they are trying to keep public opinion in line "

I'm sure that will console the officer and his family

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *opinovMan
over a year ago

Point Nemo, Cumbria

Yeah, such a shame the police are no longer able to kill members of the public when on duty without consequence - such a travesty.

Sure, martial law is a great way to rekindle public confidence in heavy-handed policing. The removal of consent will go well with the deployment of battlefield weaponry on our streets. We could bolster the economy at the same time by setting up a grant scheme for mass burials.

Whilst, on the face of it, it may be an option supported only by gibbering fascistic morons, I'm sure the image of calm stability it'll engender will reinforce our county's strong and stable standing on the world stage.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *angtidy42Couple
over a year ago

Redditch

Don't send in the Army as they have a different firearms use and mentality compared to the police who are trained in a totally different way.

The Army are a case of that's the enemy and that's your job to kill them.

Where as the police have a remit to use a firearm with thought and as a last option.

They have a very hard job to do and people do not make it easy for them.

There are a number.bervof levels to be crossed before a side arm is discharged and authorised use is also needed.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *lmost TouchingMan
over a year ago

Wherever I lay my hat.

"Don't send in the Army as they have a different firearms use and mentality compared to the police who are trained in a totally different way.

The Army are a case of that's the enemy and that's your job to kill them.

Where as the police have a remit to use a firearm with thought and as a last option.

They have a very hard job to do and people do not make it easy for them.

There are a number.bervof levels to be crossed before a side arm is discharged and authorised use is also needed. "

I am not sure if our approach to policing remains effective in the changing culture of Britain? They are doomed if they do and doomed if they don’t.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ools and the brainCouple
over a year ago

couple, us we him her.

"Yeah, such a shame the police are no longer able to kill members of the public when on duty without consequence - such a travesty.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I think they know they won’t get a conviction but need to make it look like they are trying to keep public opinion in line "

That's a very dangerous game to play, to appease public opinion. Firstly it would be a corruption of of the justice system, laying an inappropriate charge. True, the IOPC formerly IPCC have been salivating for years at the prospect of convicting an AFO. If not handled properly, there is a good chance that so many AFOs will leave that role that the police, nationally, won't be able to fill it's armed commitments. When that happens, the only other option is to arm all police officers. What could go wrong?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *rimson_RoseWoman
over a year ago

Tamworth

"Don't send in the Army as they have a different firearms use and mentality compared to the police who are trained in a totally different way.

The Army are a case of that's the enemy and that's your job to kill them.

Where as the police have a remit to use a firearm with thought and as a last option.

They have a very hard job to do and people do not make it easy for them.

There are a number.bervof levels to be crossed before a side arm is discharged and authorised use is also needed. "

I mean, yeah, if only the military were capable of hearing and understanding an order specific to the mission or had something like rules of engagement.

It’s not just rounds popping off left, right and centre know.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Everyone agrees when officers aren’t charged with murder after these deaths. But now all of a sudden they’re jumping through hoops to talk about why these charges are bullshit.

Have they ever charged an officer with murder following an officer killing someone? some people will defend anything the police do but they need to be held accountable or true essentially the most dangerous people in the country.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *unchalMan
over a year ago

Dartford

No.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I think they know they won’t get a conviction but need to make it look like they are trying to keep public opinion in line "

Well there’s countless people that have been killed by police officers that haven’t resulted in a charge so weird to start caring now?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Also wasn’t their question about a Rolex that apparently went missing?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth

"Everyone agrees when officers aren’t charged with murder after these deaths. But now all of a sudden they’re jumping through hoops to talk about why these charges are bullshit.

I know there has been a manslaughter conviction. And if anything, that's what this should be.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *aitonelMan
over a year ago

Travelling

Oh nice. I just won £10 on a bet from this.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Was interesting to see how quiet his family got when the video got released

There’s always an attempt to frame the person in the best light too. I’ve seen mention of his football passion or the fact he was a soon to be father. I’ve if stated much less that he was a career criminal and part of a gang that was responsible for gun crimes and murder. The car he was in had be used in a shooting not long before he was stopped

The bias and the story the media try to sell is obvious and ultimately, it’s all to push more culture war bs

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *UGGYBEAR2015Man
over a year ago

BRIDPORT

With the potential for being charged with murder, just for trying to carry out your job I’m surprised any policemen want to take on the role of a firearms officer.

Then when they are needed in the event of terrorism folk will be demanding to know why they aren’t there to protect the public.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Everyone agrees when officers aren’t charged with murder after these deaths. But now all of a sudden they’re jumping through hoops to talk about why these charges are bullshit.

I know there has been a manslaughter conviction. And if anything, that's what this should be."

So no they haven’t. And I think there’s only been one manslaughter charge in a really really long time?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth

"Everyone agrees when officers aren’t charged with murder after these deaths. But now all of a sudden they’re jumping through hoops to talk about why these charges are bullshit.

I know there has been a manslaughter conviction. And if anything, that's what this should be.

So no they haven’t. And I think there’s only been one manslaughter charge in a really really long time?

What's your point?

Are you telling us that police have murdered folk and never been charged?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ylesfordMan
over a year ago

Maidstone

Firstly, that vehicle was involved in a previous firearms incident, which is what indicated the initial stop.

Secondly, the vehicle failed to stop. What were they trying to hide? Why did they fail to stop?

Immediately, my suspicions would be heightened that the vehicle has already been involved in an incident involving a firearm and they are not failing to stop.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Everyone agrees when officers aren’t charged with murder after these deaths. But now all of a sudden they’re jumping through hoops to talk about why these charges are bullshit.

I know there has been a manslaughter conviction. And if anything, that's what this should be.

So no they haven’t. And I think there’s only been one manslaughter charge in a really really long time?

What's your point?

Are you telling us that police have murdered folk and never been charged?"

The point is that suggestions in this thread that this is to placate people is ridiculous. Why now? And not after, I don’t know, the riots? For example.

There’s obviously enough evidence to bring a charge in this case and a charge of murder instead of manslaughter as you’d expect, no?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I’ve literally read a million reasons why the CPS couldn’t bring ANY charges against officers that have killed a citizen (intentionally or not I’m not getting into). I feel like the fact that there are some that have been brought says a lot. It has felt like for as long as I’ve lived they’ve always found a reason not to charge.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 24/09/23 16:11:27]

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ou only live onceMan
over a year ago

London

"Known criminal with firearm marker on vehicle fails to stop to armed police and drives at them when boxed in

I can’t see the officer being convicted

This is only a thing because of the race element.

Can you blame the police for handing in their guns

Exactly officer's are going to be and already are in a position where they are going to hesitate concerned about the consequences.

Rightfully the case in question should be reviewed as it should be every time a weapon is discharged,but officer's are scared incase they get accused of wrong doing.

Imagine if it's a terrorist situation and they hesitate and a bomb is set off, people would then be blaming the police for not acting fast enough.

This case has been reviewed and the CPS believe there is enough of a case to press charges.

I agree they need to make very difficult decisions, but that's where their training and judgment comes in. They should fear consequences - they don't have freedom to act with impunity.

I agree, but a lapse in training or judgment does not amount to intent to kill someone. It’s a fuck up. Murder requires intent, ie a conscious decision."

Sure, then we'll let the courts decide. The CPS think this is an appropriate charge or they wouldn't have brought it. We either believe in an independent CPS or not.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Oh nice. I just won £10 on a bet from this. "

We have an idea what the bet was

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth

"Everyone agrees when officers aren’t charged with murder after these deaths. But now all of a sudden they’re jumping through hoops to talk about why these charges are bullshit.

I know there has been a manslaughter conviction. And if anything, that's what this should be.

So no they haven’t. And I think there’s only been one manslaughter charge in a really really long time?

What's your point?

Are you telling us that police have murdered folk and never been charged?

The point is that suggestions in this thread that this is to placate people is ridiculous. Why now? And not after, I don’t know, the riots? For example.

There’s obviously enough evidence to bring a charge in this case and a charge of murder instead of manslaughter as you’d expect, no?"

It's a sign of the times, isn't it? Have you looked around and seen the world we live in.

Someone has to be guilty. It can't possibly be the guy who was a construction worker/trainee architect/rapper who had a history of crime, driving a car (that he definitely could afford) linked to gun crime, that refused to stop and rammed police a car.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"With the potential for being charged with murder, just for trying to carry out your job I’m surprised any policemen want to take on the role of a firearms officer.

Then when they are needed in the event of terrorism folk will be demanding to know why they aren’t there to protect the public. "

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ora the explorerWoman
over a year ago

Paradise, Herts

"With the potential for being charged with murder, just for trying to carry out your job I’m surprised any policemen want to take on the role of a firearms officer.

Then when they are needed in the event of terrorism folk will be demanding to know why they aren’t there to protect the public. "

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Dont know what comic book you’ve been reading but they are most certainly not trained or encouraged to wound ! They are in-fact trained to neutralise a threat. Not execute Not gun down but neutralise.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *aitonelMan
over a year ago

Travelling

"With the potential for being charged with murder, just for trying to carry out your job I’m surprised any policemen want to take on the role of a firearms officer.

Then when they are needed in the event of terrorism folk will be demanding to know why they aren’t there to protect the public. "

Be gone with your logic! It holds no power here.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ou only live onceMan
over a year ago

London

"With the potential for being charged with murder, just for trying to carry out your job I’m surprised any policemen want to take on the role of a firearms officer.

Then when they are needed in the event of terrorism folk will be demanding to know why they aren’t there to protect the public. "

So they should be above the law and know they can never be prosecuted? Be given perpetual immunity?

I don't know if he'll be found guilty or not - that's to be tested. But a policeman is subject to the same law as the rest of us.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ou only live onceMan
over a year ago

London

Can I just check? On the RB threads people - RIGHTLY - say events need to be properly investigated and then charges brought before we can make a judgement. It can't be mob justice.

In this case, it's been investigated and charges brought, but we - the mob - get to decide which charges are applicable?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Our granddaughter wants to join the police force.

We have tried to persuade her not too as being in the police is a no win situation theses days.

They are damn if they do and damn if they don't.

We really hope she changes her mind.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Everyone agrees when officers aren’t charged with murder after these deaths. But now all of a sudden they’re jumping through hoops to talk about why these charges are bullshit.

I know there has been a manslaughter conviction. And if anything, that's what this should be.

So no they haven’t. And I think there’s only been one manslaughter charge in a really really long time?

What's your point?

Are you telling us that police have murdered folk and never been charged?

The point is that suggestions in this thread that this is to placate people is ridiculous. Why now? And not after, I don’t know, the riots? For example.

There’s obviously enough evidence to bring a charge in this case and a charge of murder instead of manslaughter as you’d expect, no?

It's a sign of the times, isn't it? Have you looked around and seen the world we live in.

There’s always a reason why it’s ok for the police to *kill* Someone. Lol

People have been killed and communities have demanded Justice for literally longer than I’ve been alive. That’s through protests and other means. But apparently now, they can’t continue to keep giving us excuses like they always do?

My cynical perspective is if they’ve charged a police officer for this then that shit is bad. Because there’s always a reason to not charge them apparently.

It is what it is anyway. let’s see what even happens.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth

"Can I just check? On the RB threads people - RIGHTLY - say events need to be properly investigated and then charges brought before we can make a judgement. It can't be mob justice.

In this case, it's been investigated and charges brought, but we - the mob - get to decide which charges are applicable? "

Slightly different. There are factual things we know in the Kaba killing.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"With the potential for being charged with murder, just for trying to carry out your job I’m surprised any policemen want to take on the role of a firearms officer.

Then when they are needed in the event of terrorism folk will be demanding to know why they aren’t there to protect the public.

So they should be above the law and know they can never be prosecuted? Be given perpetual immunity?

I don't know if he'll be found guilty or not - that's to be tested. But a policeman is subject to the same law as the rest of us."

That last sentence!! We have to be able to hold police officers accountable. What kind of a world is it if you can’t???

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Can I just check? On the RB threads people - RIGHTLY - say events need to be properly investigated and then charges brought before we can make a judgement. It can't be mob justice.

In this case, it's been investigated and charges brought, but we - the mob - get to decide which charges are applicable?

Slightly different. There are factual things we know in the Kaba killing. "

And clearly things you DON’T know.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth

"Everyone agrees when officers aren’t charged with murder after these deaths. But now all of a sudden they’re jumping through hoops to talk about why these charges are bullshit.

I know there has been a manslaughter conviction. And if anything, that's what this should be.

So no they haven’t. And I think there’s only been one manslaughter charge in a really really long time?

What's your point?

Are you telling us that police have murdered folk and never been charged?

The point is that suggestions in this thread that this is to placate people is ridiculous. Why now? And not after, I don’t know, the riots? For example.

There’s obviously enough evidence to bring a charge in this case and a charge of murder instead of manslaughter as you’d expect, no?

It's a sign of the times, isn't it? Have you looked around and seen the world we live in.

There’s always a reason why it’s ok for the police to *kill* Someone. Lol

My cynical perspective is if they’ve charged a police officer for this then that shit is bad. Because there’s always a reason to not charge them apparently.

It is what it is anyway. let’s see what even happens. "

What's funny mate? Someone was killed and someone else is being charged with murder.

I really don't see anything to laugh about.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ou only live onceMan
over a year ago

London

"Can I just check? On the RB threads people - RIGHTLY - say events need to be properly investigated and then charges brought before we can make a judgement. It can't be mob justice.

In this case, it's been investigated and charges brought, but we - the mob - get to decide which charges are applicable?

Slightly different. There are factual things we know in the Kaba killing. "

Yep, like the CPS has decided on that there is a fair chance of a conviction.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth

"Can I just check? On the RB threads people - RIGHTLY - say events need to be properly investigated and then charges brought before we can make a judgement. It can't be mob justice.

In this case, it's been investigated and charges brought, but we - the mob - get to decide which charges are applicable?

Slightly different. There are factual things we know in the Kaba killing.

And clearly things you DON’T know.

Clearly? Are there things you know that I don't?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Everyone agrees when officers aren’t charged with murder after these deaths. But now all of a sudden they’re jumping through hoops to talk about why these charges are bullshit.

I know there has been a manslaughter conviction. And if anything, that's what this should be.

So no they haven’t. And I think there’s only been one manslaughter charge in a really really long time?

What's your point?

Are you telling us that police have murdered folk and never been charged?

The point is that suggestions in this thread that this is to placate people is ridiculous. Why now? And not after, I don’t know, the riots? For example.

There’s obviously enough evidence to bring a charge in this case and a charge of murder instead of manslaughter as you’d expect, no?

It's a sign of the times, isn't it? Have you looked around and seen the world we live in.

There’s always a reason why it’s ok for the police to *kill* Someone. Lol

My cynical perspective is if they’ve charged a police officer for this then that shit is bad. Because there’s always a reason to not charge them apparently.

It is what it is anyway. let’s see what even happens.

What's funny mate? Someone was killed and someone else is being charged with murder.

I really don't see anything to laugh about. "

Nice try. I’m familiar with your game.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ou only live onceMan
over a year ago

London

Anyway, I'm in a bad mood after the football so I'll head off now...

Let's just celebrate the fact we live in a country where the Rule of Law is well established. I don't want rid of it.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Can I just check? On the RB threads people - RIGHTLY - say events need to be properly investigated and then charges brought before we can make a judgement. It can't be mob justice.

In this case, it's been investigated and charges brought, but we - the mob - get to decide which charges are applicable?

Slightly different. There are factual things we know in the Kaba killing.

And clearly things you DON’T know.

Clearly? Are there things you know that I don't?"

No but I’m not the one that decided to charge the officer am I?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Anyway, I'm in a bad mood after the football so I'll head off now...

Let's just celebrate the fact we live in a country where the Rule of Law is well established. I don't want rid of it."

007 Havertz

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth

"Everyone agrees when officers aren’t charged with murder after these deaths. But now all of a sudden they’re jumping through hoops to talk about why these charges are bullshit.

I know there has been a manslaughter conviction. And if anything, that's what this should be.

So no they haven’t. And I think there’s only been one manslaughter charge in a really really long time?

What's your point?

Are you telling us that police have murdered folk and never been charged?

The point is that suggestions in this thread that this is to placate people is ridiculous. Why now? And not after, I don’t know, the riots? For example.

There’s obviously enough evidence to bring a charge in this case and a charge of murder instead of manslaughter as you’d expect, no?

It's a sign of the times, isn't it? Have you looked around and seen the world we live in.

There’s always a reason why it’s ok for the police to *kill* Someone. Lol

My cynical perspective is if they’ve charged a police officer for this then that shit is bad. Because there’s always a reason to not charge them apparently.

It is what it is anyway. let’s see what even happens.

What's funny mate? Someone was killed and someone else is being charged with murder.

I really don't see anything to laugh about.

Nice try. I’m familiar with your game.

I'm not playing any games here. You're laughing about something which very clearly isn't funny, in anyway you looking at it.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *opinovMan
over a year ago

Point Nemo, Cumbria

"Yeah, such a shame the police are no longer able to kill members of the public when on duty without consequence - such a travesty.

utter nonsense "

* insert facepalm here *

This is why we need a special satire/sarcasm font to assist the 'hard-of-understanding' here.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ou only live onceMan
over a year ago

London

"Anyway, I'm in a bad mood after the football so I'll head off now...

Let's just celebrate the fact we live in a country where the Rule of Law is well established. I don't want rid of it.

007 Havertz"

Too soon, Steve.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth

"Can I just check? On the RB threads people - RIGHTLY - say events need to be properly investigated and then charges brought before we can make a judgement. It can't be mob justice.

In this case, it's been investigated and charges brought, but we - the mob - get to decide which charges are applicable?

Slightly different. There are factual things we know in the Kaba killing.

And clearly things you DON’T know.

Clearly? Are there things you know that I don't?

No but I’m not the one that decided to charge the officer am I? "

So it's not clear there are things I don't know then?

You meant to say, you suspect

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *uddy laneMan
over a year ago

dudley

I thought this unfettered solidarity was only afforded to BBC sport pundits.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ou only live onceMan
over a year ago

London

"Can I just check? On the RB threads people - RIGHTLY - say events need to be properly investigated and then charges brought before we can make a judgement. It can't be mob justice.

In this case, it's been investigated and charges brought, but we - the mob - get to decide which charges are applicable?

Slightly different. There are factual things we know in the Kaba killing.

And clearly things you DON’T know.

Clearly? Are there things you know that I don't?

No but I’m not the one that decided to charge the officer am I? "

Exactly this. The IOPC investigated. CPS reviewed the evidence and decided on the charge.

But not *those* charges, we cry. We can't have it all ways.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Everyone agrees when officers aren’t charged with murder after these deaths. But now all of a sudden they’re jumping through hoops to talk about why these charges are bullshit.

I know there has been a manslaughter conviction. And if anything, that's what this should be.

So no they haven’t. And I think there’s only been one manslaughter charge in a really really long time?

What's your point?

Are you telling us that police have murdered folk and never been charged?

The point is that suggestions in this thread that this is to placate people is ridiculous. Why now? And not after, I don’t know, the riots? For example.

There’s obviously enough evidence to bring a charge in this case and a charge of murder instead of manslaughter as you’d expect, no?

It's a sign of the times, isn't it? Have you looked around and seen the world we live in.

There’s always a reason why it’s ok for the police to *kill* Someone. Lol

My cynical perspective is if they’ve charged a police officer for this then that shit is bad. Because there’s always a reason to not charge them apparently.

It is what it is anyway. let’s see what even happens.

What's funny mate? Someone was killed and someone else is being charged with murder.

I really don't see anything to laugh about.

Nice try. I’m familiar with your game.

I'm not playing any games here. You're laughing about something which very clearly isn't funny, in anyway you looking at it. "

But I’m obviously NOT laughing. The ‘lol’ Is so obviously sarcastic

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth

"Everyone agrees when officers aren’t charged with murder after these deaths. But now all of a sudden they’re jumping through hoops to talk about why these charges are bullshit.

I know there has been a manslaughter conviction. And if anything, that's what this should be.

So no they haven’t. And I think there’s only been one manslaughter charge in a really really long time?

What's your point?

Are you telling us that police have murdered folk and never been charged?

The point is that suggestions in this thread that this is to placate people is ridiculous. Why now? And not after, I don’t know, the riots? For example.

There’s obviously enough evidence to bring a charge in this case and a charge of murder instead of manslaughter as you’d expect, no?

It's a sign of the times, isn't it? Have you looked around and seen the world we live in.

There’s always a reason why it’s ok for the police to *kill* Someone. Lol

My cynical perspective is if they’ve charged a police officer for this then that shit is bad. Because there’s always a reason to not charge them apparently.

It is what it is anyway. let’s see what even happens.

What's funny mate? Someone was killed and someone else is being charged with murder.

I really don't see anything to laugh about.

Nice try. I’m familiar with your game.

I'm not playing any games here. You're laughing about something which very clearly isn't funny, in anyway you looking at it.

But I’m obviously NOT laughing. The ‘lol’ Is so obviously sarcastic

If you say so, I'm familiar with your games

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Can I just check? On the RB threads people - RIGHTLY - say events need to be properly investigated and then charges brought before we can make a judgement. It can't be mob justice.

In this case, it's been investigated and charges brought, but we - the mob - get to decide which charges are applicable?

Slightly different. There are factual things we know in the Kaba killing.

And clearly things you DON’T know.

Clearly? Are there things you know that I don't?

No but I’m not the one that decided to charge the officer am I?

Exactly this. The IOPC investigated. CPS reviewed the evidence and decided on the charge.

But not *those* charges, we cry. We can't have it all ways. "

I think it’s fair to say that the CPS probably feels extra pressure to charge because of the racial nature of the case. They don’t want to be accused of another “we investigated ourselves and found we did no wrong” situation and have riots

Weirdly, has anyone seen the video? I feel like it was everywhere and now it’s like it’s been scrubbed from the internet. If I remember correctly the video was pretty damning

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ou only live onceMan
over a year ago

London

[Removed by poster at 24/09/23 16:31:53]

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

There’s always a reason why it’s ok for the police to *kill* Someone. Lol

My cynical perspective is if they’ve charged a police officer for this then that shit is bad. Because there’s always a reason to not charge them apparently.

It is what it is anyway. let’s see what even happens.

What's funny mate? Someone was killed and someone else is being charged with murder.

I really don't see anything to laugh about.

Nice try. I’m familiar with your game.

I'm not playing any games here. You're laughing about something which very clearly isn't funny, in anyway you looking at it.

But I’m obviously NOT laughing. The ‘lol’ Is so obviously sarcastic

If you say so, I'm familiar with your games

Clearly not, G

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ou only live onceMan
over a year ago

London

"Can I just check? On the RB threads people - RIGHTLY - say events need to be properly investigated and then charges brought before we can make a judgement. It can't be mob justice.

In this case, it's been investigated and charges brought, but we - the mob - get to decide which charges are applicable?

Slightly different. There are factual things we know in the Kaba killing.

And clearly things you DON’T know.

Clearly? Are there things you know that I don't?

No but I’m not the one that decided to charge the officer am I?

Exactly this. The IOPC investigated. CPS reviewed the evidence and decided on the charge.

But not *those* charges, we cry. We can't have it all ways.

Weirdly, has anyone seen the video? I feel like it was everywhere and now it’s like it’s been scrubbed from the internet. If I remember correctly the video was pretty damning "

The CPS isn't the police, of course, but I'm not sure. I don't think they'd charge anyone with murder to appease anyone or any group or because of public perception.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Everyone agrees when officers aren’t charged with murder after these deaths. But now all of a sudden they’re jumping through hoops to talk about why these charges are bullshit.

Wayne Couzens was charged with murder. Notably, his actions weren't in the course of his duty. If an officer's actions in the course of their duty results in someone's death, there have to be other outside influences/motives to consider a murder charge.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"There are factual things we know in the Kaba killing.

And clearly things you DON’T know.

Clearly? Are there things you know that I don't?

No but I’m not the one that decided to charge the officer am I?

Exactly this. The IOPC investigated. CPS reviewed the evidence and decided on the charge.

But not *those* charges, we cry. We can't have it all ways.

…"

They’re not scared of protests. If they were then they’d have started charging officers AGES ago.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Was interesting to see how quiet his family got when the video got released

The bias and the story the media try to sell is obvious and ultimately, it’s all to push more culture war bs "

I haven't seen that. What does it show?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"There are factual things we know in the Kaba killing.

And clearly things you DON’T know.

Clearly? Are there things you know that I don't?

No but I’m not the one that decided to charge the officer am I?

Exactly this. The IOPC investigated. CPS reviewed the evidence and decided on the charge.

But not *those* charges, we cry. We can't have it all ways.

…

They’re not scared of protests. If they were then they’d have started charging officers AGES ago. "

I don’t think they like them and the publics opinion of the police has never been lower

I don’t think it’s unlikely this is the case. Police all over are being found to be breaking the rules and the people at the top are clutching at anything they can to prove the police are still fit for purpose.

It’s never to late to start trying to improve your public opinion and I think this is what they are doing

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Was interesting to see how quiet his family got when the video got released

The bias and the story the media try to sell is obvious and ultimately, it’s all to push more culture war bs

I haven't seen that. What does it show?"

It seems to be scrubbed from the net

If I remember correctly it shows his car boxed in by police, guns drawn telling him to stop and him accelerating at an officer before they shot

It’ll probably be on one of those nasty video sites that show that kinda stuff that doesn’t come up on Google results

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Known criminal with firearm marker on vehicle fails to stop to armed police and drives at them when boxed in

I can’t see the officer being convicted

This is only a thing because of the race element.

Can you blame the police for handing in their guns

Exactly officer's are going to be and already are in a position where they are going to hesitate concerned about the consequences.

Rightfully the case in question should be reviewed as it should be every time a weapon is discharged,but officer's are scared incase they get accused of wrong doing.

Imagine if it's a terrorist situation and they hesitate and a bomb is set off, people would then be blaming the police for not acting fast enough.

This case has been reviewed and the CPS believe there is enough of a case to press charges.

I agree they need to make very difficult decisions, but that's where their training and judgment comes in. They should fear consequences - they don't have freedom to act with impunity.

I agree, but a lapse in training or judgment does not amount to intent to kill someone. It’s a fuck up. Murder requires intent, ie a conscious decision.

Sure, then we'll let the courts decide. The CPS think this is an appropriate charge or they wouldn't have brought it. We either believe in an independent CPS or not."

Having dealt with it since it's inception 37 years ago I believe the CPS is influenced by political agendas just like any other public sector body.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Having dealt with it since its inception 37 years ago I believe the CPS is influenced by political agendas just like any other public sector body."

I think it’s naive to think they aren’t

The police are being labelled as institutionally racist

The media are framing this as an innocent unarmed black guy shot by the police

They’d be stupid to not at least bring this to a trial. It would look awful and in the court of public opinion, the facts don’t matter

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Having dealt with it since its inception 37 years ago I believe the CPS is influenced by political agendas just like any other public sector body.

I think it’s naive to think they aren’t

The police are being labelled as institutionally racist

The media are framing this as an innocent unarmed black guy shot by the police

They’d be stupid to not at least bring this to a trial. It would look awful and in the court of public opinion, the facts don’t matter"

I don’t think they’re framing him as innocent. They’re framing him as undeserving of being murdered?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Having dealt with it since its inception 37 years ago I believe the CPS is influenced by political agendas just like any other public sector body.

I think it’s naive to think they aren’t

The police are being labelled as institutionally racist

The media are framing this as an innocent unarmed black guy shot by the police

They’d be stupid to not at least bring this to a trial. It would look awful and in the court of public opinion, the facts don’t matter

I don’t think they’re framing him as innocent. They’re framing him as undeserving of being murdered?"

They are certainly biased in their labelling of him, that’s for sure

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *enSiskoMan
over a year ago

Cestus 3

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66906201

Tom it looks like your idea is right

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *angtidy42Couple
over a year ago

Redditch

You are traind to aim at the centre of mass, not at the arms or legs. Only a snipper is trained for a head shot and that is also secondary to a centre of mass shot.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

You are traind to aim at the centre of mass, not at the arms or legs. Only a snipper is trained for a head shot and that is also secondary to a centre of mass shot. "

Not true for my generation but standards had fallen massively by the time I left, so it wouldn’t surprise me.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ou only live onceMan
over a year ago

London

"Known criminal with firearm marker on vehicle fails to stop to armed police and drives at them when boxed in

I can’t see the officer being convicted

This is only a thing because of the race element.

Can you blame the police for handing in their guns

Exactly officer's are going to be and already are in a position where they are going to hesitate concerned about the consequences.

Rightfully the case in question should be reviewed as it should be every time a weapon is discharged,but officer's are scared incase they get accused of wrong doing.

Imagine if it's a terrorist situation and they hesitate and a bomb is set off, people would then be blaming the police for not acting fast enough.

This case has been reviewed and the CPS believe there is enough of a case to press charges.

I agree they need to make very difficult decisions, but that's where their training and judgment comes in. They should fear consequences - they don't have freedom to act with impunity.

I agree, but a lapse in training or judgment does not amount to intent to kill someone. It’s a fuck up. Murder requires intent, ie a conscious decision.

Sure, then we'll let the courts decide. The CPS think this is an appropriate charge or they wouldn't have brought it. We either believe in an independent CPS or not.

Having dealt with it since it's inception 37 years ago I believe the CPS is influenced by political agendas just like any other public sector body."

But in this case, the political will leans in favour of the police. The Home Secretary has said as much, so I don't think this is the CPS bending to political will.

Of course I understand your point that they are subject to public and political mood - they're on the wrong side of it enough - but I believe they are independent. And I believe that they would not bring such serious charges unless they thought there was serious prospect of conviction.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ersiantugMan
over a year ago

Cardiff

"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66906201

Tom it looks like your idea is right"

Tom's idea lol. It was always their job in Britain. They are fully trained for home support, they are not meant to be constantly fighting a war somewhere like the Americans. We needed them early-pandemic when we had that early heatwave and a million spoilt people thought it was their special born Right to ignore all the advice and go easy. We needed their presence. They are trained to the teeth and paid every day - I'd use the army quite a lot more than we do. (The almost-disastrous British Olympics was the last time we made a big deal of them I think - before they athletes, they saved the day).

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *tooveMan
over a year ago

belfast

Army should be doing the same. Too many people getting jailed and investigated for shooting terrorists and criminals.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ou only live onceMan
over a year ago

London

"Army should be doing the same. Too many people getting jailed and investigated for shooting terrorists and criminals. "

I agree. Extrajudicial killings are the way ahead.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *rimson_RoseWoman
over a year ago

Tamworth

"Army should be doing the same. Too many people getting jailed and investigated for shooting terrorists and criminals. "

Whenever you enter an operational situation, there are rules of engagement you have to work to. It’s not some free for all - it moved! Pop it! The ROE are made very clear and there’s in depth training in what these mean in practice.

Anyone who’s prosecuted under the Armed Forces Act does so because it’s believed they’ve breached these. I’m not saying they always get it right but nor can you just go round firing indiscriminately.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Military ROE and the law, policy, procedures and considerations that AFOs work under are very different. I have carried arms operating under both. Sometimes both at the same time which is a real mindfuck when someone’s life is on the line.

The Army are generally very good at what they do, which is not policing a civilian population. They could not do what AFOs do without considerable retraining, which frankly many would fail. They are soldiers not coppers.

Anyway Military Aid to Civil Power has to be requested by Plod/HO and would likely be declined by MOD.

The only event that fully armed mass military deployment will occur on UK soil is mass terrorism and/or widespread civil disorder involving arms, basically an armed uprising, or a state of war. So put your tinfoil away.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire

"Military ROE and the law, policy, procedures and considerations that AFOs work under are very different. I have carried arms operating under both. Sometimes both at the same time which is a real mindfuck when someone’s life is on the line.

Anyway Military Aid to Civil Power has to be requested by Plod/HO and would likely be declined by MOD.

Tend to agree, there's no way we'll see armed squaddies on the streets even if some in the Tory party might whip themselves into a frenzy at the thought..

What may well happen if the request is made is some SF will be on standby in case of an imminent terrorist attack, tbh I'm not even sure what the current status is..

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

What may well happen if the request is made is some SF will be on standby in case of an imminent terrorist attack, tbh I'm not even sure what the current status is.."

The UK is currently at 'Substantial'. SF are always just a phone call away, at any time. You just have to have the right phone...

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire

What may well happen if the request is made is some SF will be on standby in case of an imminent terrorist attack, tbh I'm not even sure what the current status is..

The UK is currently at 'Substantial'. SF are always just a phone call away, at any time. You just have to have the right phone..."

Cheers for the update on the status..

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Was interesting to see how quiet his family got when the video got released

The bias and the story the media try to sell is obvious and ultimately, it’s all to push more culture war bs

I haven't seen that. What does it show?

It seems to be scrubbed from the net

If I remember correctly it shows his car boxed in by police, guns drawn telling him to stop and him accelerating at an officer before they shot

It’ll probably be on one of those nasty video sites that show that kinda stuff that doesn’t come up on Google results"

Couldn't find it, but if that is correct driving a vehicle at someone at speed is lethal force and a shot would be justified. It would be a lawful homicide. This would be apparent so there would require some outside influence or motive to escalate that to a murder charge.

Interesting that once the family had been allowed to view the footage, they 'took a step back'.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Tom will be happy now ..

I'm guessing MOD will take on guarding duties to allow AFOs to backfill gaps in ARVs. If Plod start losing SFOs they will be severely buggered. Now that MOD have been drawn into this, it shows how depleted AFOs are nationally, as mutual aid clearly can't cope..

I blame Theresa May......

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ndycoinsMan
over a year ago

Whaley Bridge,Nr Buxton,

[Removed by poster at 24/09/23 23:38:48]

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *icolerobbieCouple
over a year ago

walsall

Who on earth would want a career where just doing your job could land you on a murder charge. I don’t blame them.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

Made worse by the zombie government conservative party, who fail to communicate well, if at all, with Doctors, Teachers, Police and just about every important parts of our society. I don't blame the police, as it's a thankless job

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *enSiskoMan
over a year ago

Cestus 3

The job is voluntary no one forces them to do this role, as the handing in their licenses with no come back shows.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Having dealt with it since its inception 37 years ago I believe the CPS is influenced by political agendas just like any other public sector body.

I think it’s naive to think they aren’t

The police are being labelled as institutionally racist

The media are framing this as an innocent unarmed black guy shot by the police

They’d be stupid to not at least bring this to a trial. It would look awful and in the court of public opinion, the facts don’t matter

I don’t think they’re framing him as innocent. They’re framing him as undeserving of being murdered?"

But deserving of being (allegedly) allowed to run people over?

Was he (allegedly) murdered? Or was reasonable force used in the honestly held belief auch firce was necessary to prevent his killing someone else?

I don't know, I am not in full possession of the facts. I suspect that if he stopped the car and got out that firearms wouldn't have been used.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ust RachelTV/TS
over a year ago

Horsham

"People forget that the car involved failed to stop. I don’t blame them

So every time a car fails to stop then they should be executed and gunned down like dogs in the hot sun?"

They won't do it again though, would they!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"People forget that the car involved failed to stop. I don’t blame them

So every time a car fails to stop then they should be executed and gunned down like dogs in the hot sun?"

Clearly not.

But failing to stop (allegedly) driving your car at someone then quite possibly

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ust RachelTV/TS
over a year ago

Horsham

"People forget that the car involved failed to stop. I don’t blame them

So every time a car fails to stop then they should be executed and gunned down like dogs in the hot sun?

Clearly not.

But failing to stop (allegedly) driving your car at someone then quite possibly "

Its a good deterrant, as it will make some people think twice before doing it.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"People forget that the car involved failed to stop. I don’t blame them

So every time a car fails to stop then they should be executed and gunned down like dogs in the hot sun?

Clearly not.

But failing to stop (allegedly) driving your car at someone then quite possibly

Its a good deterrant, as it will make some people think twice before doing it."

No.

That's really not what firearms are for

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ust RachelTV/TS
over a year ago

Horsham

"People forget that the car involved failed to stop. I don’t blame them

So every time a car fails to stop then they should be executed and gunned down like dogs in the hot sun?

Clearly not.

But failing to stop (allegedly) driving your car at someone then quite possibly

Its a good deterrant, as it will make some people think twice before doing it.

No.

That's really not what firearms are for"

Maybe not, but it would reduce crime. As criminals that have been fatally shot, tend to not be able to reoffend.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *lynJMan
over a year ago

Morden

There are reports that, following on from some police officers handing back their firearm permits, the army is on standby to cover for some situations.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ellhungvweMan
over a year ago

Cheltenham

It seems to me that all sides of this debate are a mess.

The individual who was shot has been in prison for fire arms offences - which makes the use of armed officers a reasonable precaution.

I do find it strange that, more over than not, whenever an individual finds themselves in a situation like this they are always portrayed as a beautiful character, much loved by anyone who wouldn’t hurt the world and yet they always have a backstory that adds a different complexion to an issue.

On the other side is interesting to note that the BBC reported last week that “one in three staff had been cleared out of the Parliamentary and Diplomatic Protection Command” as part of the standards drive by the Met Commissioner so there is no doubt much deeper issues (morale and performance) in the wider police fire arms community.

I would imagine that in this case the decisions by the police were border line but understandable given the suspects history but that this decision to charge is also part of a wider culture change push by the police hierarchy and that you are seeing multiple agendas play out here.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago

Chelmsford

The mayor of London has not ruled out breaking up the Met into smaller forces. Could that be the answer ,?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"The mayor of London has not ruled out breaking up the Met into smaller forces. Could that be the answer ,? "

I really don’t think that would work. Policing across a big city has to be joined up.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ucka39Man
over a year ago

Newcastle

"The mayor of London has not ruled out breaking up the Met into smaller forces. Could that be the answer ,? "

They were brought together nationwide to cut down on cost

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"The mayor of London has not ruled out breaking up the Met into smaller forces. Could that be the answer ,? "

Bad enough and has been exploited by county lines drug runners

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Can’t blame them tbh, being charged with murder and being bailed until possibly a court case next September is a big weight to carry

Clearly there’s more to this one

Why else would they be handing in guns

I’d say the firearms officer has been thrown under the bus!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ts the taking part thatMan
over a year ago

southampton

I think as mentioned it's the murder charge which is an issue plus the lack of support from Khan.

The poor bloke who lost his life & his families suffering are paramount & has to come first but the Copper has to be tried fir manslaughter.

A split second decision on shoot or be shot was likely in the coppers mind but some form of punishment must be upheld.

If we make a mistake in a car or at work & kill you get punished so you should in this case but not murder.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *oquars19458Man
over a year ago

sheffield

"Can’t blame them tbh, being charged with murder and being bailed until possibly a court case next September is a big weight to carry

Clearly there’s more to this one

Why else would they be handing in guns

I’d say the firearms officer has been thrown under the bus! "

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"People forget that the car involved failed to stop. I don’t blame them

So every time a car fails to stop then they should be executed and gunned down like dogs in the hot sun?

Clearly not.

But failing to stop (allegedly) driving your car at someone then quite possibly

Its a good deterrant, as it will make some people think twice before doing it.

No.

That's really not what firearms are for

Maybe not, but it would reduce crime. As criminals that have been fatally shot, tend to not be able to reoffend."

That’s the standard argument for the death penalty. Inane. Simplistic. Nonsense.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *illan-KillashMan
over a year ago

London/Sussex/Surrey/Berks/Hants

Nonsense.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ts the taking part thatMan
over a year ago

southampton

Nonsense. "

Shoot to injure, like in a cowboy film? You watch too much TV.

Shoot to kill sadly if thinking you might get shot yourself.

Court needs to consider the case as none of us have details on before/during or after.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *illan-KillashMan
over a year ago

London/Sussex/Surrey/Berks/Hants

[Removed by poster at 25/09/23 11:18:21]

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *illan-KillashMan
over a year ago

London/Sussex/Surrey/Berks/Hants

Nonsense.

Shoot to injure, like in a cowboy film? You watch too much TV.

Shoot to kill sadly if thinking you might get shot yourself.

Court needs to consider the case as none of us have details on before/during or after. "

I didn't make the "shoot to injure " comment, I said the comment was nonsense.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *irexMan
over a year ago

Hertford

The Met (along with other police forces) is suffering from a lack of leadership, their commanders train at being politicians rather than operational and people management - the front line are disjointed and disliked by many. Training of the front line has been cut back and due to cuts they’re under severe pressure, why would you want to put yourself at the added risk of prosecution by being armed?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *trueceltMan
over a year ago

Bristol

The inexorable creep toward the police state

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *scobar67Man
over a year ago

glasgow

"People forget that the car involved failed to stop. I don’t blame them "

Hardly a reason for shooting an unarmed guy

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ools and the brainCouple
over a year ago

couple, us we him her.

"The inexorable creep toward the police state"

I think you couldn't be further from the truth.

Inexorable creep towards the country being run by the media and the court of public opinion.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I have no doubt there are many agendas at play here. The bottom line is that someone was shot.

No one here is in possession of the full facts but I have no doubt everyone here is in possession of an opinion.

None of those opinions will be impartial and each one will be coloured by the views and attitudes and experiences of the opinion holder.

As this plays out I have no doubt that the civil liberties lobby we'll have much to say, the racial politics lobby will have much to say, the extreme right wing will have much to say.

This situation has a more no doubt continue to be a political football used by many to further their own messages and opinions.

What I am sadly in no doubt about, however, is that this situation will be cynically used by many to continue the divisive rhetoric that is so common right now.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *eliusMan
over a year ago

Henlow

The police aim (if they remember and are capable) for centre of mass, occasionally head if no other option. If the suspect lives , hurrah, If they don't.....play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

As for the Army, yes they have a wonderful record of not killing unless necessary........"

Double tap, centre mass, bigger target, more likely to hit it under stress and double shots to increase chances of stopping the target, at least that’s what I was told by a US city cop. Guess the principle is trained elsewhere or maybe not now.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"The inexorable creep toward the police state"

The opposite actually.

Would a police state prosecute a police officer in these circumstances?

The state is inexorably creeping away from support of the police, and in some cases actively seeking to undermine policing.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *nj6969Couple
over a year ago

Grimsby

If anyone is killed by another it's murder and that's the legal system. It's how it's delt with that counts.

Was a criminal failing to stop for armed police so got whacked no sleep lost here.

So there should be enquiry of course and officer should be cleared move on.

All this shoot to wound rubbish is from people that know nothing about guns. Its incredibly hard to hit a moving target at range. And you always take center mass basically it's the biggest bit. It's not like call of duty where the put Crosshair on and don't miss, it simply isn't like that. Nothing is perfectly consistent with a gun. Barrel heat, load, weather, range, wind, deflection of the windscreen the list is endless. A perfect nogging hit is pretty impossible. The officer fired 99 percent of the time prob wouldn't have killed him but this one did.

It's the risk you take when being a dick with a gun pointed at you. We should always think before a life is taken but these guys don't have the time to think too long. He should be found not guilty given some leave to get himself together and returned to duty with a pat on the back.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"If anyone is killed by another it's murder

Actualky, being technical, murder is:

"The unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the Queen's peace, with malice aforethought"

The imortant aspect here is the word unlawful. That will be for the court to decide.

I strongly suspect the court will acquit

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *nj6969Couple
over a year ago

Grimsby

"If anyone is killed by another it's murder

Actualky, being technical, murder is:

"The unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the Queen's peace, with malice aforethought"

The imortant aspect here is the word unlawful. That will be for the court to decide.

I strongly suspect the court will acquit "

And so they should but has to be looked over as a life was taken it's how they deal with it. X

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"If anyone is killed by another it's murder

Actualky, being technical, murder is:

"The unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the Queen's peace, with malice aforethought"

The imortant aspect here is the word unlawful. That will be for the court to decide.

I strongly suspect the court will acquit

And so they should but has to be looked over as a life was taken it's how they deal with it. X "

I (genuinely) wonder- will any jury let bias cloud their judgement?

Nah

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"If anyone is killed by another it's murder

Actualky, being technical, murder is:

"The unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the Queen's peace, with malice aforethought"

The imortant aspect here is the word unlawful. That will be for the court to decide.

I strongly suspect the court will acquit

And so they should but has to be looked over as a life was taken it's how they deal with it. X

I (genuinely) wonder- will any jury let bias cloud their judgement?

Nah "

but which bias?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"If anyone is killed by another it's murder

Actualky, being technical, murder is:

"The unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the Queen's peace, with malice aforethought"

The imortant aspect here is the word unlawful. That will be for the court to decide.

I strongly suspect the court will acquit

And so they should but has to be looked over as a life was taken it's how they deal with it. X

I (genuinely) wonder- will any jury let bias cloud their judgement?

Nah

but which bias? "

If the jury is, selected fron Fab, there would appear to be quite enough bias to go round

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"If anyone is killed by another it's murder

Actualky, being technical, murder is:

"The unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the Queen's peace, with malice aforethought"

The imortant aspect here is the word unlawful. That will be for the court to decide.

I strongly suspect the court will acquit

And so they should but has to be looked over as a life was taken it's how they deal with it. X

I (genuinely) wonder- will any jury let bias cloud their judgement?

Nah

but which bias? "

The ‘it should be not guilty anyway’ without ever hearing evidence presented by the prosecution one

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"If anyone is killed by another it's murder

Actualky, being technical, murder is:

"The unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the Queen's peace, with malice aforethought"

The imortant aspect here is the word unlawful. That will be for the court to decide.

I strongly suspect the court will acquit

And so they should but has to be looked over as a life was taken it's how they deal with it. X

I (genuinely) wonder- will any jury let bias cloud their judgement?

Nah

but which bias?

The ‘it should be not guilty anyway’ without ever hearing evidence presented by the prosecution one

That, or the it should be guilty anyway’ without ever hearing evidence presented by the prosecution one

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"If anyone is killed by another it's murder

Actualky, being technical, murder is:

"The unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the Queen's peace, with malice aforethought"

The imortant aspect here is the word unlawful. That will be for the court to decide.

I strongly suspect the court will acquit

And so they should but has to be looked over as a life was taken it's how they deal with it. X

I (genuinely) wonder- will any jury let bias cloud their judgement?

Nah

but which bias?

If the jury is, selected fron Fab, there would appear to be quite enough bias to go round"

If the jury was selected from fab they’d have managed to give not guilty to actually let me not speak

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *izandpaulCouple
over a year ago

merseyside

"People forget that the car involved failed to stop. I don’t blame them

So every time a car fails to stop then they should be executed and gunned down like dogs in the hot sun?"

I didn't know you shot dogs in a car in hot sun?

Think that's a bit excessive, a bowl of water would suffice.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"If anyone is killed by another it's murder

Actualky, being technical, murder is:

"The unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the Queen's peace, with malice aforethought"

The imortant aspect here is the word unlawful. That will be for the court to decide.

I strongly suspect the court will acquit

And so they should but has to be looked over as a life was taken it's how they deal with it. X

I (genuinely) wonder- will any jury let bias cloud their judgement?

Nah

but which bias?

The ‘it should be not guilty anyway’ without ever hearing evidence presented by the prosecution one

That, or the it should be guilty anyway’ without ever hearing evidence presented by the prosecution one

I’ve not seen that in here tbf

But I think most people in British society are going to back the officer

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"If anyone is killed by another it's murder and that's the legal system. It's how it's delt with that counts.

Was a criminal failing to stop for armed police so got whacked no sleep lost here.

So there should be enquiry of course and officer should be cleared move on.

I’m loving how you’ve already decided that they should be cleared. I’m guessing from that you’ve viewed all the evidence?

The incident has been investigated. As a result of that investigation, a decision was taken to present the evidence gathered to the CPS. On reviewing that evidence, the CPS decided that the threshold was reached to proceed with a charge for murder. The officer will have a trial and a jury will determine innocence or guilt. If guilty, a judge will hand down sentence.

The police, CPS and courts are independent of each other. Police officers, armed or otherwise, do not act as jury, judge and executioner. We don’t have the death penalty in this country.

That’s not to say the guy was an angel, or the police were wrong, but justice must be seen to be done.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"If anyone is killed by another it's murder

Actualky, being technical, murder is:

"The unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the Queen's peace, with malice aforethought"

The imortant aspect here is the word unlawful. That will be for the court to decide.

I strongly suspect the court will acquit

And so they should but has to be looked over as a life was taken it's how they deal with it. X

I (genuinely) wonder- will any jury let bias cloud their judgement?

Nah

but which bias?

The ‘it should be not guilty anyway’ without ever hearing evidence presented by the prosecution one

That, or the it should be guilty anyway’ without ever hearing evidence presented by the prosecution one

I’ve not seen that in here tbf

But I think most people in British society are going to back the officer

I’ve got a family member, retired senior officer, gold commander, had the authority to sanction use of firearms. Said to me today that in his opinion officers handing in their cards are out of order, they can’t expect to shoot someone and not be held to account for it.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *penbicoupleCouple
over a year ago

Northampton

Does Tom have shares in the army? Is Tom given some kind of commission every time they're sent in?

I've never seen someone so keen to send the troops in to any and every situation!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *illan-KillashMan
over a year ago

London/Sussex/Surrey/Berks/Hants

"The inexorable creep toward the police state"

Yet more nonsense.

The threads full of it.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"If anyone is killed by another it's murder

Actualky, being technical, murder is:

"The unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the Queen's peace, with malice aforethought"

The imortant aspect here is the word unlawful. That will be for the court to decide.

I strongly suspect the court will acquit

And so they should but has to be looked over as a life was taken it's how they deal with it. X

I (genuinely) wonder- will any jury let bias cloud their judgement?

Nah

but which bias?

The ‘it should be not guilty anyway’ without ever hearing evidence presented by the prosecution one

That, or the it should be guilty anyway’ without ever hearing evidence presented by the prosecution one

I’ve not seen that in here tbf

But I think most people in British society are going to back the officer

There have been a couple of posters already referring to the situation as murder. Thats a bias.

In fairness every human being will have a bias. Nature of the beast.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ools and the brainCouple
over a year ago

couple, us we him her.

"The inexorable creep toward the police state

Yet more nonsense.

The threads full of it.

Right.

The anti establishment agenda is overwhelming at times.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ools and the brainCouple
over a year ago

couple, us we him her.

"The inexorable creep toward the police state

Yet more nonsense.

The threads full of it.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"The inexorable creep toward the police state

Yet more nonsense.

The threads full of it.

Right.

The anti establishment agenda is overwhelming at times."

You’ll be pleased to know the establishment isn’t going anywhere

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"If anyone is killed by another it's murder

Actualky, being technical, murder is:

"The unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the Queen's peace, with malice aforethought"

The imortant aspect here is the word unlawful. That will be for the court to decide.

I strongly suspect the court will acquit

And so they should but has to be looked over as a life was taken it's how they deal with it. X

I (genuinely) wonder- will any jury let bias cloud their judgement?

Nah

but which bias?

The ‘it should be not guilty anyway’ without ever hearing evidence presented by the prosecution one

The struggle to find an impartial jury is always a problem

Look at the Russel Brand thing happening now. Good luck finding an impartial jury and giving that guy a fair trial

The difference here is there will be plenty of body cam footage as evidence.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *illan-KillashMan
over a year ago

London/Sussex/Surrey/Berks/Hants

"The inexorable creep toward the police state

Yet more nonsense.

The threads full of it.

Right.

The anti establishment agenda is overwhelming at times."

I love and hate threads like this. People pronouncing judgement on a subject they no not a single actual fact about. Funny and ridiculous all at the same time.

"The police are trained to shoot to wound", "its a police state", "he's guilty/innocent" based purely on prejudice and personal opinion, like they're carved on stone fetched down from a mountain top.

Opinions. Bellybuttons.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ools and the brainCouple
over a year ago

couple, us we him her.

"If anyone is killed by another it's murder

Actualky, being technical, murder is:

"The unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the Queen's peace, with malice aforethought"

The imortant aspect here is the word unlawful. That will be for the court to decide.

I strongly suspect the court will acquit

And so they should but has to be looked over as a life was taken it's how they deal with it. X

I (genuinely) wonder- will any jury let bias cloud their judgement?

Nah

but which bias?

The ‘it should be not guilty anyway’ without ever hearing evidence presented by the prosecution one

That, or the it should be guilty anyway’ without ever hearing evidence presented by the prosecution one

I’ve not seen that in here tbf

But I think most people in British society are going to back the officer

I disagree what will happen is most right thinking people will make a judgement on the information provided.

Assuming that the information is correct and untarnished either way most will agree that a known criminal in a sto len vehicle failed to stop when instructed to do so, if that was from fear or guilt we will never know and as a result an unarmed man was rightly or wrongly shot dead and most people will expect an unbiased and proper enquiry and hopefully the correct outcome will be reached without being influenced by the media or pressure from within to establish if it was lawful or not.

Facts should always outweigh public and media opinions and hopefully the correct response will be taken at that time.

It's not for us to speculate based on personal experience it's down to the people who are paid and trusted to.

Everything else is just speculation.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *nj6969Couple
over a year ago

Grimsby

Look of course there needs to be an enquiry nobody should say otherwise. Everyone accountable if a life taken. But it's how the jury look on the officer is the key. Police don't just randomly fire there is a policey of when they can. If that was used and correctly he will and should be acquitted immediately.

Rules of engagement apply to police and military and if these rules were followed he will and should be fine.

Heat of the moment things happen that's goes from not Al everyday life up to the bloody sas and needs to be taken into account.

Let's see what happens but I totally can understand officers standing down if it becomes a witch hunt.

They do the jobs 99 percent of the population haven't the stomach or balls for. Same as military they make sure we can sleep safe at night. We need to give them the correct backing that's key. X

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *penbicoupleCouple
over a year ago

Northampton

"The inexorable creep toward the police state

Yet more nonsense.

The threads full of it.

Right.

The anti establishment agenda is overwhelming at times."

Wanna see something REALLY overwhelming? Take a look at the establishment agenda. It is literally all around you. Sometimes you can't even see it, it is so pervasive!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago

Chelmsford

What would of happened on the continent ?

Would it be different in France or Spain ?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yes putting armed British soldiers on the street to police the streets has a wonderful record hasn't it.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"What would of happened on the continent ?

Would it be different in France or Spain ?"

Allez Allez Allez!!

Viva la revolución!!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *illan-KillashMan
over a year ago

London/Sussex/Surrey/Berks/Hants

"What would of happened on the continent ?

Would it be different in France or Spain ?

Allez Allez Allez!!

Viva la revolución!!"

Mange tout mange tout Rodney.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ust RachelTV/TS
over a year ago

Horsham

"People forget that the car involved failed to stop. I don’t blame them

So every time a car fails to stop then they should be executed and gunned down like dogs in the hot sun?

Clearly not.

But failing to stop (allegedly) driving your car at someone then quite possibly

Its a good deterrant, as it will make some people think twice before doing it.

No.

That's really not what firearms are for

Maybe not, but it would reduce crime. As criminals that have been fatally shot, tend to not be able to reoffend.

That’s the standard argument for the death penalty. Inane. Simplistic. Nonsense."

It is also a fact, dead people can't commit a crime.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *isfits behaving badlyCouple
over a year ago

Coventry

Does the individual soldier get a say in if they want carry out this armed duty? I assume they are working under the same legal framework and rules of engagement? Thus are open to the same risk of prosecution if their actions are deemed to have not been to standard when firearms have been used. Yet have they the same level of relevant training, experience of policing and instincts to suitably be carrying out armed operations within the community supporting civil police duties. I know they have been used before to support police like in beefing up airport guarding duties but are they suitable for supporting wider armed duties and response in the wider community? I would suggest maybe not and personally although at ease with the physical risks I wouldn't be at ease with the legal risks or prospect of jail time if I called it wrong. Especially knowing I wasn't as suitable for the nuances of armed policeing in the community as experienced armed police officer would be.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ust RachelTV/TS
over a year ago

Horsham

"If anyone is killed by another it's murder and that's the legal system. It's how it's delt with that counts.

Was a criminal failing to stop for armed police so got whacked no sleep lost here.

So there should be enquiry of course and officer should be cleared move on.

You missed out that with the adrenaline surging through your body, brrathing a bit heavier, it now becomes very hard to calm down enough to take an aimed shot. Add to that a moving target, it ramps up the difficulty a tad.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"What would of happened on the continent ?

Would it be different in France or Spain ?

Allez Allez Allez!!

Viva la revolución!!

Mange tout mange tout Rodney.

EAT THE RICH- Karl

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state. The other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people."

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ir SupremacyMan
over a year ago

Bolton

The police are nowhere near as highly trained as the British military anyone that thinks the police could do the militarys job it's insulting 99 percent would not get through Para selection.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago

Chelmsford

If the elite army units were sent in then armed crime would drop simples. It's one thing dealing with the boys in blue and another dealing with the boys in green.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *teveanddebsCouple
over a year ago

Norwich

"If the elite army units were sent in then armed crime would drop simples. It's one thing dealing with the boys in blue and another dealing with the boys in green.

There aren't enough of the.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *kthenMan
over a year ago

yorkshire

What about the dogs in London that were murdered... police have to operate within the rules too and that was very wrong.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ooo wet tight hornyWoman
over a year ago

lancashire

"People forget that the car involved failed to stop. I don’t blame them "

And also it was registered as been previously involved in an incident with a gun...sad for the family and the guy that died from been shot..he should have stopped the car when first asked.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *tephTV67TV/TS
over a year ago

Cheshire

"If the elite army units were sent in then armed crime would drop simples. It's one thing dealing with the boys in blue and another dealing with the boys in green.

Yellow card rules applied in N. Ireland and would probably have to be instigated again for the UK mainland.

So the guys in green would not have any more powers to shoot than the guys in blue.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ucka39Man
over a year ago

Newcastle

Obviously the Met have their morals in the wrong place, would've been more sensible at the time the queen bailed out Andrew

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ools and the brainCouple
over a year ago

couple, us we him her.

"Obviously the Met have their morals in the wrong place, would've been more sensible at the time the queen bailed out Andrew "

What??

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth

"Obviously the Met have their morals in the wrong place, would've been more sensible at the time the queen bailed out Andrew "

That's news to most of us

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ools and the brainCouple
over a year ago

couple, us we him her.

"Obviously the Met have their morals in the wrong place, would've been more sensible at the time the queen bailed out Andrew

What??"

I can't see how this is relevant doesn't even make sense.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire

"Obviously the Met have their morals in the wrong place, would've been more sensible at the time the queen bailed out Andrew "

I think this wins the internet prize today for 'no actual relevance to a topic' ..

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *batMan
over a year ago

Alicante, Spain. (Sometimes in Wales)

"The police are nowhere near as highly trained as the British military anyone that thinks the police could do the militarys job it's insulting 99 percent would not get through Para selection. "

This is laughable. 99% of the MILITARY wouldn’t get through Para selection.

I’ve heard of quite a few ex soldiers failing to get in the police but I’ve never heard of any ex police failing to get in the military.

Basic training for a police officer takes two years and in most forces includes getting a Degree. How long for a soldier? Some of them don’t know their left from right when they join.

I’m not knocking the military, but to compare the two services is like comparing apples to oranges.

Gbat

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I’ve just finished work and had wine but good finish to this thread. A nice light hearted end

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ucka39Man
over a year ago

Newcastle

"Obviously the Met have their morals in the wrong place, would've been more sensible at the time the queen bailed out Andrew

What??

I can't see how this is relevant doesn't even make sense."

It's pretty easy to understand if a officer is being charged and rest hand in their weapons because of this.... it not only treason within the line of duty to the king but I'm sure part of the code of conduct when signing up for policing

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I’ve just finished work and had wine but good finish to this thread. A nice light hearted end

What wine have you had?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Obviously the Met have their morals in the wrong place, would've been more sensible at the time the queen bailed out Andrew

What??

I can't see how this is relevant doesn't even make sense.

Ohhh as in they should’ve handed in their weapons over the Andrew situation.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I’ve just finished work and had wine but good finish to this thread. A nice light hearted end

What wine have you had? "

I’ve had a glass of Malbec today

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately