Armed Police

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
#1
From BBC Radio News 11:00 - 02 Nov 04

Following the suspension of two Armed Reaction Police Officers for killing a man carrying a table leg, about twenty other officers have been refusing to carry firearms.

Now this is "taking firearms off the streets" to make us safer.
 
#2
Cutaway said:
From BBC Radio News 11:00 - 02 Nov 04

Following the suspension of two Armed Reaction Police Officers for killing a man carrying a table leg, about twenty other officers have been refusing to carry firearms.

Now this is "taking firearms off the streets" to make us safer.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3973261.stm
About 20 Metropolitan Police firearms officers have handed in their weapons in protest at the suspension of two colleagues over a fatal shooting.
Harry Stanley, 46, a Scot who lived in London, was unarmed and carrying a table leg when he was killed in 1999.

An inquest on Friday returned a verdict of unlawful killing and Pc Kevin Fagan and Insp Neil Sharman were suspended.

The Stanley family's solicitor, Daniel Machover, said the inquest decided the officers had not acted in self-defence.

Declaration signed

On Monday, after meetings involving members of SO19, the Metropolitan Police's 400-strong specialist firearms unit, 20 officers handed in their cards authorising them to carry weapons.

A large number of other firearms officers have declared their support for the two colleagues and are also thought to be considering the move.

These two officers were required to make a split-second assessment and decision

Jan Berry
Police Federation
About 100 are understood to have signed a declaration criticising the way the pair have been treated.

Scotland Yard said the level of armed cover in London remained "unaffected".

After the inquest - the second into Mr Stanley's death - the Crown Prosecution Service, which had previously ruled out bringing charges, said it would review the case.

Glen Smyth, chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, said the case had thrown into doubt all training and guidance given to firearms officers.

He told the Today programme: "The officers are very concerned that the tactics they are trained in, as a consequence of the verdict, are now in doubt.

"They want some clarity around what they are expected to do."

Chair leg

Family solicitor Daniel Machover told BBC Radio 4's Today programme the jury "did not believe the officers when they said they felt under imminent threat".

But he added that the jury's decision was not a "broad attack" on the training or tactics of firearms police.

Mr Smyth said he would consider mounting a legal challenge to the inquest's verdict.

Jan Berry, chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales, said she was not surprised by the officers' reaction.

She said: "With the benefit of hindsight we can all say what we may have done but these two officers were required to make a split-second assessment and decision."

Mr Stanley's widow Irene campaigned for the second inquest

When Mr Stanley was shot, he was carrying a table leg in a plastic bag which the two officers thought was a sawn-off shot gun.

The father-of-three, a painter and decorator, was shot as he left a pub in Hackney, east London, carrying the table leg which had just been repaired by his brother.

The Stanley family, originally from Lanarkshire, won a ruling in the High Court in April this year to have an open verdict from his first inquest quashed.

In a statement on Friday the Met said the death of Mr Stanley was regrettable and offered sympathy to his family.

The two officers fired the shots after mistakenly being informed that Mr Stanley was an Irishman with a sawn-off shotgun.
And I really reckon the average 'civilian' let alone forces trained shooter would have made a better decision on the day 8O
 
#4
probably because that would be a really dumb move in iraq at the moment .
 
#5
I am 100% behind the action of these police men.

they feel appauled by the treatement of some of their colleagues and have chosen to demonstrate this fact. Any one remotely involved in a union (ughhhh!!!) would do the same.

These police men volunteer to serve as armed officers and undergo extensive training and get no thanks or praise for this extra responsibility/danger. As such, when they are faced with a life threatening situation, they have to make a split second decision which may save (or ultimately end) another humans life. As such they have my ultimate respect.

In this case, it seems that the suspect made a suspicious movement (ie turned round with the suspect package aiming in the direction of said armed officers) and was shot twice. They may have made a tragic mistake, but it is the governement who have chosen to use these mens judgement and experience in order to oppose armed criminal and as such they should back them up. Instead, as soon as an armed officer fires one shot on duty, they are automaticlly suspended and taken off armed duty pending an investigation to proove that they performed within the rules of the law. This must be extremely demoralising as they are being punished for carrying out thier job.

good luck guys, i hope you are proved not guilty

agent smith
 
#6
[quote="scalieback]
And I really reckon the average 'civilian' let alone forces trained shooter would have made a better decision on the day 8O[/quote]

Oh really?

And what information have you used to reach this conclusion?

Is this another 20/20 hindsight ruling. Always easy after the event to say it shouldn't have been done like that. Whilst I have every sympathy for the family I doubt very much if he just walked out the pub and was dropped.

Was he warned? Highly unusual if he wasn't.

I don't have enough information to make a judgement on what happened.
 
#8
apparently the officers had been breifed that he was carying a shot gun. (not a table leg) so logical that they thought it was a weapon.
Yes but it was in a carrier bag he was carrying, these two tossers were not in danger and decided to "take Mr Stanley out", they deserve to be charged with manslaughter.
I'm all for armed police but lets make sure we train these ********** properly.
 
#9
Henry_Tombs said:
apparently the officers had been breifed that he was carying a shot gun. (not a table leg) so logical that they thought it was a weapon.
Yes but it was in a carrier bag he was carrying, these two tossers were not in danger and decided to "take Mr Stanley out", they deserve to be charged with manslaughter.
I'm all for armed police but lets make sure we train these ********** properly.
So, - you're mobilised to 'man with shotgun' situation and you order him to PUT THE BAG DOWN.

He doesn't and turns towards you raising the bag.

Your next action is? ........
 
#10
what is he is just raising the bag to show you it is a chair leg?
 
#11
shoot him center body mass if he lives he is lucky if he dies unlucky, should have done what he was ordered by the man with the gun
 
#12
quiller said:
what is he is just raising the bag to show you it is a chair leg?
Oh come on ....

You're told that a man has a shotgun (they were apparently told this via the 999 phone call) They weren't told it was a suspicious object but a shotgun.

You've just come screaming up in flashy light car, leapt out pointing weapons at him and yelling to put the bag down.

He doesn't.

You now have 1.5 seconds (or less) to make a decision on your next move.

Forget the fact that it was actually a table leg, you've been told (and have no reason to disbelieve) it's a shotgun.

What are you going to do?
 
#14
Rudolph_Hucker said:
quiller said:
what is he is just raising the bag to show you it is a chair leg?
Oh come on ....

You're told that a man has a shotgun (they were apparently told this via the 999 phone call) They weren't told it was a suspicious object but a shotgun.

You've just come screaming up in flashy light car, leapt out pointing weapons at him and yelling to put the bag down.

He doesn't.

You now have 1.5 seconds (or less) to make a decision on your next move.

Forget the fact that it was actually a table leg, you've been told (and have no reason to disbelieve) it's a shotgun.

What are you going to do?
chill out and get as much info as possible on the situation as they are trained to do, not shoot first and find a chair leg later.
 
#15
The world has gone mad, if he'd been carrying the leg without a bag I bet they would have done him for carring an offensive weapon :roll:

The fact remains that an INOCENT UNARMED man was killed, having done hand gun training and spent bloody ages going through Cinema, SAT and loads of other ranges with all sorts of scenarios and legal implications about shooting before confirming threat etc I still fail to see how you could open fire. Yes there is a risk that the suspect may open fire but that is the risk undertaken in the job. On the (thankfully) few occaisions I have had to "challenge" I have always accepted that I may get shot/killed but it IS MY job and I chose to ensure MY action to fire would be justified, maybe I've been lucky, but I've never shot an unarmed man.

I know, I was not there, but I have a real issue with inocent people getting shot, its our job to protect the Public not kill them. The way things are going how long before the public are more scared of the watchers?
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
#16
balldrick said:
shoot him center body mass if he lives he is lucky if he dies unlucky, should have done what he was ordered by the man with the gun
So "Failing to comply with an order" now carries a summary capital sentence ?

Damn glad you're not in the police !
 
#17
if an armed policeman is pointing a gun at me and giving me an order damn sure i am going to do what he tells me to do
 
#18
The officers screwed up as concluded by the legal beagles I take it then that they had answers to all these questions... how far were they? ec, etc... before passing judgement. As to these union boys moaning about their jobs, just get on with it...
 
#19
Let's not let the facts stand in the way of a good rant.

It is clear from press reports that the legal team for Mr Stanley's family challenged the two armed police officers' claim that he had turned toward them in a boxer's stance, raising the table leg as if it was a weapon. The officers' explanation was described as 'concocted'.

I dont know what forensic evidence was before the jury. None of us can know what factors influenced the jury to reach the verdict they did after 7 hours deliberation. However, the 'unlawful killing' verdict almost certainly implies that the jury after careful consideration disbelieved the explanation put forward by the two officers or their lawyers.

I dont know either exactly what info was passed to the 2 officers, but I suspect it was a bit less black-and-white than simply 'man with shotgun left pub'. They probably knew that the report came from a civilian - in a pub. And yes, I do know about 'fog of war' and I agree that the benefit of the doubt should go to those who are acting to uphold the law.

It remains to be seen whether the CPS will decide to prosecute.

We can all sympathise with officers having to take split-second operational decisions, and also accept that armed officers have every right to hand in their weapons as some have done.

There was a lengthy discussion before on Arrse about alleged 'police violence'. One police officer argued rather graphically that an individual officer has the right to baton, kick, scratch or bite any person if the situation demands it, irrespective of orders received, governed only by the law. (I paraphrase only slightly). Now suddenly the law doesnt apply if it doesnt suit them?

not wishing to be provocative,
 
#20
balldrick said:
if an armed policeman is pointing a gun at me and giving me an order damn sure i am going to do what he tells me to do
Providing he hears you! or that you give the order :wink:
 

Similar threads


New Posts

Top