Unprofessional bellends at it again

[HeliX]

1 hour ago, Hoops said:

Ok, but what percentage of serious violent crime was committed by black individuals? In 2018, black people made up 13% of London's population, and black individuals committed nearly 50% of the murders, where ethnicity was known. Black people were also much more likely to be murdered.

I don't understand how you can talk about one without the other, or address the issues involved while using statistics so selectively.

Being a QPR fan, I've listened to the wonderful Mark Prince, the government, and it's agencies,  should too.

I saw some witness statements in the local media after the shooting, it becomes more understandable. 

 

Well the question really is why are black people disproportionately represented in violent crime stats? And the answer tends to be that if you look at the stats by poverty levels, they're not - it's just that they're disproportionately represented in poverty stats. And the reason for that tends to come back to institutional racism...

[Derek Flint]

11 hours ago, Roxanne said:

Your job, as a representative of the police is not to shoot an unarmed man, after pursuing him for fifteen minutes without activating lights or sirens. Your job, as police, after being informed the vehicle may have been previously linked to a firearms incident a few days earlier, is to pursue, with a view to question, and if, necessary, arrest a suspect. Your job, as police is not to shoot an innocent, unarmed man. That is not dong your job Thommo, that is murder, and the more police who are charged with murder when it is a case of murder, the more likely the rest of them will follow procedures and not be so damned trigger happy.

Chris Kaba was not a suspect and never had been a suspect. He was shot and murdered because he was black. 

Metropolitan Police data suggest Police are four times more likely to use force against black people compared with the white population, a BBC analysis report in 2020 suggested.

 

 

I'm guessing I'm the only former Tactical Firearms Commander on here, who had previously been an authorised firearms officer, and Firearms Tactical Adviser. So I can probably comment with some authority?

First of all, if you want to play armchair commanders, here is some stuff to help you.

https://www.college.police.uk/app/armed-policing

That is basically it - other than the tactics contained in the National Police Firearms Training Curriculum, which, for good reason, is restricted.

Secondly, the deployment of armed police is not exclusively confined to what Roxanne is determining as 'armed'. This is a commonly held misconception. Deployment of armed officers is based on a 'reason to suppose'

• where the officer authorising the deployment has 'reason to suppose' that officers may have to protect themselves or others from a person who:
  • is in possession of, or has immediate access to, a firearm or other potentially lethal weapon, or
  • is otherwise so dangerous that the deployment of armed officers is considered to be appropriate, or
• as an operational contingency in a specific operation (based on the threat assessment), or
• for the destruction of animals which are dangerous or are suffering unnecessarily.

Reason to suppose

Use of the words ‘reason to suppose’ sets the level of knowledge required (about the existence of a threat justifying the deployment of AFOs) at a far lower level than that which would actually justify the use of firearms.

In London, and most other counties, there is now a standing authority for armed officers based on the frequency that officers may have to protect themselves or others from people that meet the criteria for deployment. They have immediate access to their weapons, including baton, PAVA, Taser, 'Baton Gun' and of course firearms in the mode of a handgun or carbine. This is a long way from my early days in armed policing when on ARV. The guns were locked away and you were always the very last people to go to job which would justify deployment. It was the safest job in policing!

Then Article 2 of the Human Rights Act sort of bobbed into view, and terrorists started committing atrocities. The state has a positive obligation to protect life under Art 2, and it was a bit difficult to do if there weren't armed officers ready and nearby. See "Borough Market" as an example.

On top of that, the 1974 Health and Safety at Work Act was starting to catch up with policing. Officers being deployed into an increasingly violent society were being issued with bigger sticks, PAVA, CS, body armour, Taser, and a few more were carrying guns. Chief Constables were lawfully required to send officers out with the means to protect themselves from reasonably foreseeable threats.

And of course, again the terrorism issue presses the point of having a ready to go 'operational contingency based on the threat assessment'. That is why you now see overtly armed officers at Tynwald Day. It's a picture book terrorist opportunity.

Then we come to the 'armed' issue. This isn't a western gunslingers shootout. 'Or other potentially lethal weapon' might include a knife, a crossbow, a suicide vest or even a car or lorry' (see 'Nice' for an example). The purpose of an armed deployment is to identify the threat, locate and contain it, then neutralise it. Depending on the circumstances, you might achieve the last two with a protracted containment in a house, alongside negotiation leading to a surrender. However, the moment that person either seeks to move out of that containment, or harm someone within it, then the circumstances change and another tactic may be considered. If they attempted to leave, say, in a vehicle, and there was reason to believe they were armed, perhaps due to a marker on the vehicle or their own nominal, what would you do? do you then enter an OJ Simpson convoy and 'pursue' them for many miles, risking them discharging a weapon into crowds, or deciding to mow down a bus queue, or do you go upstream and neutralise that threat there and then, using say tactical vehicle contact, or in the worst case scenario, shooting the driver? You might have 2 seconds to evaluate that situation and make a decision. 

Which brings in another point that someone made - that police should avoid making 'split second' decisions whether to shoot. Every single time, a decision model is spun, sometimes in milliseconds. It is called the National Decision Model (also on the college of policing site.) It will include all the options available, from verbal communication to lethal force. For that, the officers train at length, and requalify regularly. Most fail on decision making, rather than marksmanship.

Just to touch on the 100 or so officers that 'protested'. It won't have been a protest. I'd have genuinely been considering my own future in armed policing. The burden of responsibility is enormous - I felt it enough as a commander let alone right at the pointy end. Sometimes you need to reflect on the consequences that may come to your door. And few have faith in the IOPC. Google the case of W80 and see what you make of that?

Finally, the 'Army being ready to step in' was a drama headline. They always are in terrorism cases. There is a specific operation where special forces units which are permanently and strategically deployed would have primacy switched to them until the threat was neutralised. It is effectively what happened at the Iranian Embassy, but is just a much more sophisticated and integrated version today.

So, Roxanne, I hope that helps a little bit in your future assessment of matters.

 

[Derek Flint]

 

15 hours ago, Last Ten said:

Thanks Gladys

The radio reports says this:

“A social media post by the Isle of Man Constabulary's Roads Policing Unit which has been described by the Manx force as 'unacceptable' has been referred to the police's professional standards department.”

If I am reading this correctly that’s an internal section of the Police, in other words in-house!? (I may be totally wrong).

So I wonder if the Police Complaints Commissioner has or should be involved?

https://www.gov.im/categories/home-and-neighbourhood/police-complaints-commissioner/

Maybe @Derek Flint could tell us?

 

Yes, it is an Inspector, who will then task another inspector to investigate the matter. The file will then go to the PCC for review.

Is this learning, or is it misconduct? Personally, i believe it is the former and can be dealt with by advice and education.

 

 

 

[Fred the shred]

Is this learning or misconduct ?   For me it is a concern that anyone with such little commonsense or lack of intelligence should even be serving in the police force.

[The Phantom]

3 hours ago, HeliX said:

Well the question really is why are black people disproportionately represented in violent crime stats? And the answer tends to be that if you look at the stats by poverty levels, they're not - it's just that they're disproportionately represented in poverty stats. And the reason for that tends to come back to institutional racism...

There is a city in the US which has an equal number of black and white people and they have a lower rate of crime than any comparative city.  

Admittedly once they let all the black people out of prison, it could change. 

* this is a joke I once heard and in no way reflects my opinions (but might reflect my sense of humour). 

Edited October 2, 2023 by The Phantom

[WTF]

5 hours ago, P.K. said:

You forgot the bit where these officers have to face off against the UK's most dangerous criminal elements who are very likely to be armed - or they wouldn't have been called out. Because you have to meet force with force. They also have to make split-second decisions on opening fire because they want to live through the event and go home to the wife and kids afterwards.

And they do it all in your name...

well yes,  but maybe if they could actually see a weapon first before shooting ?? ,

Edited October 2, 2023 by WTF

[P.K.]

Violent crime in Kennesaw GA is 65% lower than the US national average.

The law requiring every household to have a working firearm and ammunition might just have something to do with it...

[P.K.]

9 minutes ago, WTF said:

well yes,  but maybe if they could actually see a weapon first before shooting ?? ,

That might make it too late...

[HeliX]

1 hour ago, P.K. said:

That might make it too late...

Oh well, best murder members of the public then.

[P.K.]

59 minutes ago, HeliX said:

Oh well, best murder members of the public then.

Unless you want to go home in a box I suppose...

[thommo2010]

1 hour ago, HeliX said:

Oh well, best murder members of the public then.

There's a saying, rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Fact is none of us were there the officer felt shooting the bloke was justified, it will now be up to a court to hear that and decide if in the terms of the law it was.

[Andy Onchan]

Oh deary me.

https://news.sky.com/story/northamptonshire-police-chief-investigated-over-wearing-falklands-medal-despite-being-15-at-time-12972411

[HeliX]

1 hour ago, thommo2010 said:

There's a saying, rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

I imagine that'll be incredibly comforting for the family of the man who the police murdered.

[HeliX]

1 hour ago, P.K. said:

Unless you want to go home in a box I suppose...

The "every encounter could be your last" rhetoric is exactly what's caused the shit-show that is American policing.

[The Phantom]

5 minutes ago, HeliX said:

The "every encounter could be your last" rhetoric is exactly what's caused the shit-show that is American policing.

American policing is mainly a shit show due to their gun culture. 

Every single time the Police interact with anyone, they have to assume they will be carrying a gun.  It is therefore not surprising in the least that they regularly escalate and end up in tragedy. 

At least they don't have to really worry about that here.